F65 Getting Cheaper

[SJX]

Thanks for posting those screen grabs. It may be the daylight light on James Spader but I find those skin tones more honest and appealing than on Hugh Jackman. To me, the Hugh Jackman skin tones look orangey. It's something I sometimes notice in RED footage. It could be treatment or light. I think that Grug has hit on something to say it looks thinner on the newer cameras. I agree. It is less rich, I see that but that pink in the skin around his nose an upper lip seem truer to me and preferable. It is probably just me. The best DP I ever worked with does not like working with the Sonys echoing the same opinion, saying that the image in clinical. I don't know. I like it.

And that two shot at the table. Although the light is very stylistic, the highlights on her face are pure white with a beautiful blend to shadow and I think extremely expressive. I think that looks freakin' fantastic. What am I missing?

I think what you are talking about is grade choice and cinematography while what I was talking about was skin rendition and the way the highlights are handled. The orange skin is a grade choice. Not the camera.

I agree that Grug has defined it really well. The F35 just looks richer. For me the F55 and the other Sony cameras scream video. The F65 gets a pass. But it's a matter of taste and opinion. I like the F35 you like the F55 we are all happy.

About the two shot at the table. It wasn't an example of highlight handling. It was a example of noise in the darks. The F35 is notorious for being a bit noisy in the shadows. But the F65 and F55 are also noisy when compared to the Alexa and C300.

 

[SJX]

No, I have a full set of PL lenses. For me the choice between an F35 and F3 was brutal because the price was virtually the same back in 2012 when I got the F3. But I had to opt for the F3 for ISO 800 sensitivity, and lighter weight - the F35 would have required me to upgrade all of my support gear (tripod, slider etc.) and that pushed it out of reach. There was also the fear of repairs costing more than the damn camera should something go wrong.

Upgrading to the F5, the F35 never entered the equation because clients requesting HFR was the only real reason for the upgrade in the first place.

I actually put some very serious thought into grabbing one of these ex-rental F65s at the bargain basement prices they're fetching at the moment. But I tried one out at a local rental house and just found the big cube design too unwieldy and heavy for my tastes - the Alexa is just as heavy, but the form factor makes it much more manageable IMO. I also had to consider the simple reality that the production world I inhabit (independent narratives, and music videos) simply don't have the budgets to cope with the F65's storage requirements and post workflow.

Plus the F65 has exactly ZERO buzz amongst producers (which is why rental companies are dumping theirs en masse at the moment), so the added cost wouldn't be helped by the benefits of having a camera people WANT to hire.

Makes sense Grug. I think what killed the F65 was Sony themselves when they released the F55. For most it is not clear that the F65 is actually the much better camera because the F55 is close enough for the price and the newer one. Also, the cheaper camera will always be more popular and when it's also smaller and easier to handle it becomes a fight uphill for the F65. The ones who win are savy shooters out there who like how the F65 looks and can get a bargain for a camera that is actually used in high scale production and for a reason. It doesn't prove anything but I doubt the F55 will ever see any use with high budget theatrical films like the Genesis, F35 and F65 do. Unless Sony discontinues the F65, the choices will continue to be F65, Epic and Alexa.

 

[starcentral]

Grug, you won't regret your F5 purchase. Remember how long it was before nice F3 slog footage came out and how skeptical people were about it before it became a little more mainstream. At one time slog was $3200 plus $6200 for the gemini if you wanted RGB 444 so it was a while before it became "free" and people got to experiment with it.

Large studios have the budget to get better looks from the F5/55/65 but its not like your going to see them using an F5/F55.. so the F65 and work we see from it will always look better than productions that don't have the budget for post.

I think with the recent updates to Davinci and increased support for ACES workflows soon this nut will get cracked and we will see some nice narrative work from the F5/55. I just invested in full sets of diffusion filters from 1/8th to 1/4 strengths and confident this will help get my images even better looking and closer to film. Oh and the hazer, more lighting, etc.. :cheesy:

 

[SJX]

Dennis, you bring up two interesting points.

Large studios have the budget to get better looks from the F5/55/65 but its not like your going to see them using an F5/F55..

Probably for a reason right? The F65 is probably harder to use in many ways but it is still preferred.

I just invested in full sets of diffusion filters from 1/8th to 1/4 strengths and confident this will help get my images even better looking and closer to film.

This reminds me of something that I think it was Rodney Charters that said about the 4K cameras. You start with 4K and then you have to use filters, soften the image in post and go through a lot of post process to make the image look right. This is why he likes the Alexa. It has a great look out of the box and is just sharp enough. I'm paraphrasing but that was the point. There must be a reason that although the Alexa is the most expensive, has the least dynamic range specially compared to Dragon and is the least sharp it's still the most used currently. Technically the Alexa is inferior to both the Epic Dragon and F65. I don't think it's the most used only because it's an Arri like many say. I think that in the lower levels there are pixel peeping and a mentality that you always need the latest and greatest while in the high end professionals tend to go with things that work. Probably the reason Arri has not updated the Alexa yet and has actually released a second one with the Amira. Why spend the money when your almost 5 years old technology is still the king? I would actually say they probably already have an Alexa 4k or 6K. But they have no reason to bring it out till the current Alexa stop selling and I don't see that being in the near future.

 

[starcentral]

I'm not so much looking to soften the resolution of my 4k images on the F55. What I found with light strengths of fog, glimmer glass, or a nice Mitchell C filter is that you get a subtle bloom around highlights and more particularly around hot sources. Also similar to ultra cons some of the light from the scene is spread right across the image and into the shadows. Sometimes this can produce that nice milky white overlay easily mistaken for "atmosphere" which typically you'd create by using a hazer.

Those F55 stills I posted earlier had no filters used at all, the hazer I rented for that project didn't work out due to massive drafts, and I didn't use any diffusion on my fresnels. Had the hazer worked that day or had I used a filter the image would have turned out a little more organic looking in my opinion.

Speaking of organic Sony also has the replacement 2k OLPF for the F5/55 which is yet another tool to experiment with to try and lose that sterile Sony look.

 

[Grug]

Makes sense Grug. I think what killed the F65 was Sony themselves when they released the F55. For most it is not clear that the F65 is actually the much better camera because the F55 is close enough for the price and the newer one. Also, the cheaper camera will always be more popular and when it's also smaller and easier to handle it becomes a fight uphill for the F65. The ones who win are savy shooters out there who like how the F65 looks and can get a bargain for a camera that is actually used in high scale production and for a reason. It doesn't prove anything but I doubt the F55 will ever see any use with high budget theatrical films like the Genesis, F35 and F65 do. Unless Sony discontinues the F65, the choices will continue to be F65, Epic and Alexa.

I totally agree. Though actually, Claudio Miranda is using the F55 on his latest film at the moment. The F65 is the A-cam on sticks/cranes and the F55 is used for all handheld, steadicam and car-rigs etc. It'll be interesting to see the results, because let's face it - that man can make any digital camera look incredible.

Grug, you won't regret your F5 purchase. Remember how long it was before nice F3 slog footage came out and how skeptical people were about it before it became a little more mainstream. At one time slog was $3200 plus $6200 for the gemini if you wanted RGB 444 so it was a while before it became "free" and people got to experiment with it.

Large studios have the budget to get better looks from the F5/55/65 but its not like your going to see them using an F5/F55.. so the F65 and work we see from it will always look better than productions that don't have the budget for post.

I think with the recent updates to Davinci and increased support for ACES workflows soon this nut will get cracked and we will see some nice narrative work from the F5/55. I just invested in full sets of diffusion filters from 1/8th to 1/4 strengths and confident this will help get my images even better looking and closer to film. Oh and the hazer, more lighting, etc.. :cheesy:

Well, fingers firmly crossed. Diffusion filters and a hazer are much more sensible investments than a lot of the crap we all buy - I barely shoot anything these days without those two things combined.

What was the reasoning behind avoiding any diffusion on your fresnels for Uncommon Enemies? (I'm on holiday in the Maldives(!) at the moment, so Internet is only good for text and I haven't been able to watch the whole thing yet).

 

[Andrew Stone]

Don't ignore or forget about the Schneider Diffusion Filters. Classic Soft and Hollywood Black Magics are amazing to work with. The HBM get a fair amount of attention but the Classic Softs are nice on their own particularly if you are doing interviews or head shots. If you use the better Nikon lenses, they are 77mm fronts and these diffussion filters come in screw ons as well. Great if you are doing Steadi work (Dennis) and you are trying to shed some weight. Screw ons are a lot cheaper and allow you to experiment a bit more.

 

[keithlango]

Big fan of the hazer, diffusion & filter combo.

I thought Oblivion looked really, really good. I have no complaints about the imagery in that film at all. I'd consider an F65 someday if this whole 4K thing manages to make headway with the people that matter (ie: mom & pop watching their shows at home). The way I see it I have at least a couple years before I gotta pull the trigger on that decision and by then the options will be plentiful - and the F65 more affordable. But for now I'm very happy with the F35 in my hands.

 

[SJX]

I totally agree. Though actually, Claudio Miranda is using the F55 on his latest film at the moment. The F65 is the A-cam on sticks/cranes and the F55 is used for all handheld, steadicam and car-rigs etc. It'll be interesting to see the results, because let's face it - that man can make any digital camera look incredible.

Well, in that fashion even the 5D and GH2 have been used in Hollywood cinema. It's common to have them for vehicle interiors or as car rigs for example. But you will never see them as the A camera.

We may even see the F55 as the A camera or even the only camera in a mainstream movie. But as long as the F65 is available I can't see a reason to go with it besides on situations where weight and size matters.

 

[SJX]

I thought Oblivion looked really, really good. I have no complaints about the imagery in that film at all. I'd consider an F65 someday if this whole 4K thing manages to make headway with the people that matter (ie: mom & pop watching their shows at home). The way I see it I have at least a couple years before I gotta pull the trigger on that decision and by then the options will be plentiful - and the F65 more affordable. But for now I'm very happy with the F35 in my hands.

Oblivion did look great. I wasn't really complaining though. I was merely pointing out that the F65 (or F55 for that matter) is not noise free or even as clean as the Alexa or C300 and that the extra resolution does not matter in this day where HD is still the normal.

But if I had a F35 and for some reason was forced to go 4K with the current prices, I would probably go F65 too since I don't think the Alexa is coming down in price any soon.

But the questions is, couldn't you just bump the F35 up to 4K? The RED One was not 4K at all. Some say it was barelly 3K. The F35 is already resolving in excess of 1152p according to the Zacuto test. More like 2407x1360 if you believe their chart results. I bet it would uprez really well to 3840 × 2160 and 3996 × 2160 or even full 4K. I wonder if anybody has tried this. If it would hold it could buy F35 owners a few more years till 8K would become the normal. But for now as far as I know most movies are still released in 2K, which the F35 can do in spades.

To be honest, I would be more motivated to trade in a F35 because of dynamic range than resolution. 12 stops or 11.3 according to Zacuto with the F35 is nice. But 14 stops just buys you so much more.

 

[Viddovation]

Considering the F35's photosite layout is fairly straightforward to map, it would be conceivable to write software that would upscale the image to a higher resolution, so long as recording was done in RGB444.

Since we can map the sensor layout based on RGB values, an RGB444 recording would in essence give us values sourced from a specific, mapable, 2 photosites on the sensor. This then, has some similarity to raw bayer data.

You could then design a scheme for uprezzing the footage. But the values become interpolated at this point, not true.

I'd say, if you were to do this, you might want to make UHD 3840x2160 your target. You'd only have to generate an every other line vertically, and for the horizontal mappings, you could double the pixel count, and use a process of weightings and edge detection to map it out.

It'd be a beast of an algorithm, but I think the results could be good for UHD display.

 

[starcentral]

Diffusion filters and a hazer are much more sensible investments than a lot of the crap we all buy - I barely shoot anything these days without those two things combined. What was the reasoning behind avoiding any diffusion on your fresnels for Uncommon Enemies?

Thanks for asking about it. I was going with hard light sources in a reverse key setup and going to count on the hazer to work as the fill and a little diffusion. Plus we wanted a bit more of a classic look from the WWII era.

But... of course once you get to a location you know how everything can change.

With the only HMI's I could power at that location I was already at 3200ISO and that was after removing panes of glass from the windows the lights were going through since they were cutting down the light too much. By doing that however (removing the glass panes) it ended up creating occasional drafts which kept sucking out the mist from my hazer. As a result I didn't get the exact effect I wanted, but it is what it is.

Don't ignore or forget about the Schneider Diffusion Filters. Classic Soft and Hollywood Black Magics are amazing to work with. The HBM get a fair amount of attention but the Classic Softs are nice on their own particularly if you are doing interviews or head shots. If you use the better Nikon lenses, they are 77mm fronts and these diffussion filters come in screw ons as well. Great if you are doing Steadi work (Dennis) and you are trying to shed some weight. Screw ons are a lot cheaper and allow you to experiment a bit more.

Yep the Black frosts and black-pro-mists are great filters too.

I'm a huge fan of screw on filters and have them as my "backup" set, except to be honest they get more use than my 4x5.6's. I'm also trying out Series 9 IX filters, pretty well half the cost and same effect as screw-on except they are held in place with a retaining ring. You can get some brand name (Tiffen, Schneider) Series IX filters for as low as $20 - $40 if you keep your eyes out for them. They are around 82mm wide so cover a lot of glass.

 

[yoclay]

Just to get this thread back on track, in my opinion the color range of the F65 is utterly incredible.
There are colors coming out of that camera that I have never seen before from anything digital.
We are talking lavender and aqua. Frankly, this is very special and if color is your thing than it is the obvious choice.

ON another note, the price that this one is being offered for is great, but just what exactly is the mod that has been done on them and
what is the guarantee? As far as I can tell concerning the latter, their is none. No service contract means headaches eventually.

 

[Viddovation]

I would tend to trust mods by Otto Nemenz. It's one of the most respected rental houses in the game. And a number of what they call mods are actually added plates or adapters that could be removed by the end-user if preferred.

As for service contracts and guaruntees, I mean, I think virtually everyone on this Dvxuser F35 forum bought their camera second hand without manufacturer warranty... so you're talking to a target audience that is willing to deal with that risk (and I agree it's a risk).

Personally, I love the F35 not just for it's actual qualities, but also because it is so rare and unusual. It stands out. In a market dominated by RED, when people run into it, it's memorable, and I am by extension. I think the same would apply for the F65.

 

[SJX]

Yes the F65 has supposedly a wider gamut, but quite honestly I haven't seen it in action yet. Oblivion was basically monochrome and After Earth had way too much CGI to judge the camera. Do you have practical examples of the wider color gamut yoclay?

The F65 has it's advantages for sure. It's as sharp as I ever would want a camera to be. It seems sharper than the Epic. The clarity and fine detail is amazing. The dynamic range at 14 stops also beats the F35 by far. It's just that F35 is more rich, the F35 mojo which no other Sony has. I also like the highlights better with the F35. Maybe because it's CCD. The F65 has a CMOS right? And the global shutter comes from a mechanic shutter, which produces an interesting look on it's own. Technically more like a film camera, which is also nice. But again this makes it a huge beast to shoot from the shoulder. I think when you compare the pros and cons it will be a highly personal decision between the F35 and F65. Neither is perfect and both have features I would want in a single camera.

The fact is, the F55, F65 and Epic should technically beat the F35 and Alexa to shame. But it doesn't happen. There is more to images than just numbers.

By the way, Viddovation, can the F35 trigger start the SR-R1? Does the SR-R1 have any advantages over the 7Q? To me it seems the 7Q does all the SR-R1 does and more and costs much less. It doesn't even look like it's easy to fit the SR-R1 on the F35 without some major workarounds, even though it's a Sony product. Trying to decide on a recorder for the F35.

 

[yoclay]

Yes the F65 has supposedly a wider gamut, but quite honestly I haven't seen it in action yet. Oblivion was basically monochrome and After Earth had way too much CGI to judge the camera. Do you have practical examples of the wider color gamut yoclay?

The F65 has it's advantages for sure. It's as sharp as I ever would want a camera to be. It seems sharper than the Epic. The clarity and fine detail is amazing. The dynamic range at 14 stops also beats the F35 by far. It's just that F35 is more rich, the F35 mojo which no other Sony has. I also like the highlights better with the F35. Maybe because it's CCD. The F65 has a CMOS right? And the global shutter comes from a mechanic shutter, which produces an interesting look on it's own. Technically more like a film camera, which is also nice. But again this makes it a huge beast to shoot from the shoulder. I think when you compare the pros and cons it will be a highly personal decision between the F35 and F65. Neither is perfect and both have features I would want in a single camera.

The fact is, the F55, F65 and Epic should technically beat the F35 and Alexa to shame. But it doesn't happen. There is more to images than just numbers.

By the way, Viddovation, can the F35 trigger start the SR-R1? Does the SR-R1 have any advantages over the 7Q? To me it seems the 7Q does all the SR-R1 does and more and costs much less. It doesn't even look like it's easy to fit the SR-R1 on the F35 without some major workarounds, even though it's a Sony product. Trying to decide on a recorder for the F35.

Yes, I saw the color gamut in action at last year's IBC with a couple of colorists. They were blown away too. There are definitely colors I have never seen before from a camera in the digital age. Anything that really requires subtle hues is going to be supported by this camera as a choice. The Alexa is optiimized to match film like Kodak Vision 3, the Sony has a different place. Personally, I think the greatest factor working against it is it's size/weight and the heavy duty DAT requirements.

 

[yoclay]

Yes, they call it DAT in Europe sometimes.

 

[SJX]

What the A stands for?

 

[starcentral]

Just remember when comparing the F35 vs "all others" that the F35 does its look in-camera whereas for the other cameras it only happens once the color science is applied in post. RED has had some decent color science since the get-go but for Sony you are going to have to hire or become an expert colorist to get real pleasing images out of it. ACES workflows now supported by Sony Vegas and Davinci Resolve have helped somewhat, but it's still no walk in the park to create F35 images out of the other Sony's. (Of course the studios can afford to do it.)

Consider also that with the F35 you can record to a BMD shuttle for $300 and it will still look amazing. Not so true with the F55/65, you are likely going to have to shoot in RAW 444 modes in 16-bit just to have the linear image data available in post to get something "filmic" and workable. If that's the case start thinking of the disk space and storage requirements you're going to need if you dare start recording in 8K F65 RAW linear @ 2.0Gbps... .

The F35 is a miracle of a camera. I don't think anyone can deny that.

 

[SJX]

Given that I think the best images from the F35 are probably obtained by recording a flavor of S-log, I don't think I agree with the F35 does its look in-camera bit. S-log is not in camera.

But yes, the F35 is a miracle of a camera. Wonder why Sony couldn't repeat it with the F65 and F55.