F65 Getting Cheaper

slog helps, but slog is not the "magic" of the F35 that gives it that filmic "look" in-camera. If it was then prior to slog being available via CineEI mode on the F35 nothing would never had looked as great as it did right?

slog will extend the dynamic range of the camera slightly, and due to very nature of slog it will provide a little more even distribution of data per stop throughout the overall dynamic range but these benefits will only be realized in scenes where drastic highlights are present, or the overall scene contrast ratio is high, or the grading itself will be extensive.

In my experience slog is used many times for scenes where it might be completely unnecessary and hypergammas/cinegammas would produce equally pleasing results. On a non-F35 camera if you don't expose slog "properly" you end up with REC709 footage anyway since the tendency is to over-expose slog in the first place.

I'm not saying the scenarios listed above don't exist, just saying that slog is not the primary magic of the F35. It's the wrangling of the highlights and keeping them smooth at all times no matter what you point the camera at. Perhaps also given that each pixel has a dedicated RGB photosite the color information is far more accurate and rich.


Why Sony wouldn't repeat it on the F3/F5/F55/F65 - I have no bloody idea. It's not like they fluked onto the filmic response and design of the F35. Maybe ARRI holds patents to the highlight wrangling abilities they developed and Sony had to license it for the F35 which was time limited. My guesses are the same as pissing in the wind. Who knows.
 
SJX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sadly, no - the record trigger doesn't work. Mind you, the first problem is that the F35 doesn't send even a secondary record trigger unless it detects a recorder attached. However, this isn't really a huge issue - the remote panel of the SR-R1 can be used easily enough.

Advantages verus the 7Q - quite honestly, there don't appear to be any, other than perhaps taste and codec preference. All I can say in my defense is that I bought my F35 and the SR-R1 prior to the Oddessy 7Q being announced, that I got the SR-R1 for about $3,500 with two cards (then paid for the card reader), and that I also own a Sony F3, for which the SR-R1 does have special capabilities regarding Select FPS. So, it was the best option at the time.

Docking... my first attempt was poor in hindsight. But the dock method I have now is really quite tidy and secure - it basically is like the recorder is part of the camera - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?319805-Docking-the-Sony-SR-R1-to-the-Sony-F35

All it really takes is a simple metal plate (easily machined for $50 to $100) and an extra IF Box dock plate (available from Sony for $105), and some M3 screws (or M2.5, i forget). The result essentially docks the same way the IF box does, is rock solid, and has the same color scheme as the camera. It does help to have the L-Handle.

Also, if you even consider the SR-R1, don't pay retail. I know for instance that EC Pro would sell you one for $5,000 with two 256gb cards.

But I certainly understand the appeal of the Oddessy 7Q. I probably would have gone that route if I didn't already own the SR-R1 when it came out.
 
Given the 7Q is now a viable option, I would recommend it over the SR-R1 if getting F35 for the simple fact if the SR-R1 needs service it is going to be expensive. Depreciated prices on used products don't matter much in the world of service. An Odyssey will be under warranty for a little and it's just cheap to begin with.
 
starcentral said:
slog helps, but slog is not the "magic" of the F35 that gives it that filmic "look" in-camera.
Click to expand...

This is not what I meant. I know the F35 is the "better" camera or produces the better look and this is naturally inherent to the camera itself. I know it's not the s-log or the F3 would be as good and we just know it isn't.

What I meant is that to get the best quality you need to shoot s-log and that this needs color grading. I was basically just saying that to think the F35 is a in-camera look camera is not correct, if that's what you meant.

It is independent from the F35 mojo debate. For the mojo. For the mojo, I don't think you can actually achieve what the F35 gives you with the other cameras by just color grading. Once light is recorded you can manipulate it but you can't change it.

Back to why Sony wouldn't repeat it on the F3/F5/F55/F65, I think some of it is wouldn't and others may be couldn't.
I'm sure they did not want to repeat it with the F3. It was a low end low cost solution to the F35.
With the F5 and F55 they obviously cut corners to meet a price point so they probably couldn't repeat it. To me it always looked like the F55 was meant to be a budget F65 and the F5 a budget F55 obviously.
The puzzle is with the F65 where they clearly would want it to be as good and best the F35, which it clearly was intended to replace. My best guess is that Panavision helped them more than we think they did and the F35 is as much a result of Panavision's color science and experience with imagery as it is Sony's and Sony couldn't repeat it without them. Sony is a TV company. Always was. Panavision is a cinema company. Not surprising that the only Sony camera that doesn't look video-ish is the one they developed with Panavision. Makes total sense.
 
As I see it, and as many have said, the pros of both the F65 and F35 make the decision more or less a wash, dependent on how you plan to use the camera. I think the biggest reason to choose an F65 over an F35 is the fact that Sony still supports it. That counts for a lot--imagine how much less reverse engineering we'd be doing on this forum if Sony was still interested in selling F35s.
 
Viddovation said:
Sadly, no - the record trigger doesn't work. Mind you, the first problem is that the F35 doesn't send even a secondary record trigger unless it detects a recorder attached. However, this isn't really a huge issue - the remote panel of the SR-R1 can be used easily enough.

Advantages verus the 7Q - quite honestly, there don't appear to be any, other than perhaps taste and codec preference. All I can say in my defense is that I bought my F35 and the SR-R1 prior to the Oddessy 7Q being announced, that I got the SR-R1 for about $3,500 with two cards (then paid for the card reader), and that I also own a Sony F3, for which the SR-R1 does have special capabilities regarding Select FPS. So, it was the best option at the time.

Docking... my first attempt was poor in hindsight. But the dock method I have now is really quite tidy and secure - it basically is like the recorder is part of the camera - http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?319805-Docking-the-Sony-SR-R1-to-the-Sony-F35

All it really takes is a simple metal plate (easily machined for $50 to $100) and an extra IF Box dock plate (available from Sony for $105), and some M3 screws (or M2.5, i forget). The result essentially docks the same way the IF box does, is rock solid, and has the same color scheme as the camera. It does help to have the L-Handle.

Also, if you even consider the SR-R1, don't pay retail. I know for instance that EC Pro would sell you one for $5,000 with two 256gb cards.

But I certainly understand the appeal of the Oddessy 7Q. I probably would have gone that route if I didn't already own the SR-R1 when it came out.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the reply. The reason I asked was because I was offered a SR-R1 for basically the same price of a 7Q. If it at least was triggered by the F35 I would maybe consider it if only because it at least looks like it belongs instead of an after thought like 7Q and others. But seeing as the 7Q beats it in every way I might as well go with the 7Q. I don't think you gain anything with the HDCAM SR format over Prores or DPX in the 7Q. Or isn't SR-HQ just the tapeless version of HDCAM SR?
 
starcentral said:
Given the 7Q is now a viable option, I would recommend it over the SR-R1 if getting F35 for the simple fact if the SR-R1 needs service it is going to be expensive. Depreciated prices on used products don't matter much in the world of service. An Odyssey will be under warranty for a little and it's just cheap to begin with.
Click to expand...

This is also a very good point Dennis.
 
Hunterqual said:
As I see it, and as many have said, the pros of both the F65 and F35 make the decision more or less a wash, dependent on how you plan to use the camera. I think the biggest reason to choose an F65 over an F35 is the fact that Sony still supports it. That counts for a lot--imagine how much less reverse engineering we'd be doing on this forum if Sony was still interested in selling F35s.
Click to expand...

If they were still interested in selling F35s we probably wouldn't be able to afford it. So let's be thankful they are no longer interested. ;)

This is why I'm not sure Sony is still that interested in selling even F65s. I think they will soon discontinue it if sales are not happening and the F65 will be on the same boat as the F35.
 
I love my F35. My reason for even considering the F65 (at reduced price) is that with the 4k modes, it's marketable to clients that would object on principle to the F35. Has less to do with what the camera is capable of, then how I can sell it. Sadly, the line between business and craft.
 
SJX said:
This is not what I meant. I know the F35 is the "better" camera or produces the better look and this is naturally inherent to the camera itself. I know it's not the s-log or the F3 would be as good and we just know it isn't.

What I meant is that to get the best quality you need to shoot s-log and that this needs color grading. I was basically just saying that to think the F35 is a in-camera look camera is not correct, if that's what you meant.

It is independent from the F35 mojo debate. For the mojo, I don't think you can actually achieve what the F35 gives you with the other cameras by just color grading. Once light is recorded you can manipulate it but you can't change it.

Back to why Sony wouldn't repeat it on the F3/F5/F55/F65, I think some of it is wouldn't and others may be couldn't.
I'm sure they did not want to repeat it with the F3. It was a low end low cost solution to the F35.
With the F5 and F55 they obviously cut corners to meet a price point so they probably couldn't repeat it. To me it always looked like the F55 was meant to be a budget F65 and the F5 a budget F55 obviously.
The puzzle is with the F65 where they clearly would want it to be as good and best the F35, which it clearly was intended to replace. My best guess is that Panavision helped them more than we think they did and the F35 is as much a result of Panavision's color science and experience with imagery as it is Sony's and Sony couldn't repeat it without them. Sony is a TV company. Always was. Panavision is a cinema company. Not surprising that the only Sony camera that doesn't look video-ish is the one they developed with Panavision. Makes total sense.
Click to expand...

But we all know that "best quality" is subjective and doesn't always translate to something we'll actually see in the end result. Same as we are talking about the F35 and the F65. Which is better on paper? But which one looks better to us? slog is the same beast. In a technical white paper the benefits of slog are made quite clear (slight improvement of dynamic range, better data utilization & equalization per stop, better highlight rendition) but there are times where you won't see any benefit, and using slog can even be the wrong choice. But we can agree that the mojo doesn't come from slog or other cameras would have mojo too.


As for achieving mojo by color grading it has to be possible or we wouldn't see any decent highlight renditions in video or photo still cameras that shoot linear RAW. The question is can you get that mojo from slog and is 10-bit 422 or even 444 enough to get it? I'm starting to think it's not but my recent progress in Resolve and wrangling highlights in very high contrast scenes has given me some hope.


Maybe you're right and Panavision had more to do with the awesome look of the F35 than Sony did. Perhaps Sony thought they were protecting some industry by not making the new F's filmic. Maybe they knew that the major studios would have deep enough pockets to make it look like film and screw the little guys.


Hunterqual said:
As I see it, and as many have said, the pros of both the F65 and F35 make the decision more or less a wash, dependent on how you plan to use the camera. I think the biggest reason to choose an F65 over an F35 is the fact that Sony still supports it. That counts for a lot--imagine how much less reverse engineering we'd be doing on this forum if Sony was still interested in selling F35s.
Click to expand...

For guys at "our level" I personally don't see the pros of the F65 at all. I only see the cons. With any $100k camera parts or service will be expensive. Without that mojo you are going to need to shoot in RAW 444 to get anything decent enough in post to work with, that's 66 minutes per 512GB in 4K @ 24fps, 1TB if you decide on 8K. I know an I.T. guy in the U.S. making a living off just managing the storage requirements for F65 productions. No thanks. For now I'm going to try to wrangle the best looking image from the F55 that I can in 10-bit 422 or 10-bit RGB 444 internal to the F55. Failing that I will buy the 16-bit RAW module and have much more to work with - but it's just that, WORK.

The F65 makes nothing easier. Keep your F35 folks. Move along, nothing to see here... :)
 
Last edited:
Then try shooting FS700 2K RAW, recording to an Odyssey 7Q, process in Adobe Camera Raw via After Effects, and transcode via Media Encoder. I am currently in production on a feature and that is our basic workflow. We're also shooting anamorphic, but the look is cinematic and not at all like the typical "Sony" look.
The trick is to not use Resolve to transcode, and hold back on 4K for narrative work- because it can be brutal on an actor's face if you don't have the budget for extensive retouching in post. I think super clean high resolution also lends itself to the soap opera look. 35mm film, with its grain structure, gate weave and three layers of color emulsion ended up smearing a fair amount of high frequency detail.
 
Last edited:
BTW- I almost bought the F65 shortly after it came out when I saw some initial footage. Got approved and everything but I couldn't sign the contract. Soooo glad I didn't- after a little bit of research. What I believed killed the F65 was the massive data requirements (at the time) and a poor, inconsistent and often non functioning workflow. In other words, Sony released the camera too early. Not only were producers not interested in shooting with the F65, they refused to even consider it. It's primarily Sony shows and pictures that use the F65.

It wasn't popular then, how popular do you think it'll be with producers now?

If you're producing content that's one thing. If you plan to hire it out i suggest do your research with current clients to gauge interest. $26.5K is a whole lot less than $120K, but if the camera hardly works $26K flushed down the toilet is still $26K flushed down the toilet.
 
starcentral said:
Shot on the F55, "A Million Ways to Die in the West" by DP Michael Barrett who also shot No Good Deed & About Last Night on the F65.

Check out the details of all three films in the latest edition of CineAlta Magazine issue #2.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KniKvVxaM1o
Click to expand...


That is quite possibly one of the dumbest, most inane trailers I have seen in a long time, unless of course they said "awesome" every thirty seconds in the Wild West of 1882.

Also, whoever is the colorist (or the [roducer) should be hogwhipped for how red the skin colors are and how oversaturated the images generally have been made. The same could be said for the clip before it. To me this is all about crappy decision making in post and poor lighting, not the camera.
 
Last edited:
would it be possible to shoot on F65, 4K RAW -> 2K Prores HQ with CD Odyssey, like FS700 option?
[h=1].[/h]
 
leteeci said:
would it be possible to shoot on F65, 4K RAW -> 2K Prores HQ with CD Odyssey, like FS700 option?
Click to expand...

That's a question for Mitch Gross and team at CD. I do not believe they can record F55 RAW with the 7Q, just FS700 raw to a dng file sequence.

I just bought an FS700 as a high speed option for the feature (can shoot up to 240 fps in 2k raw, but we only go to 120 fps) I am currently shooting. After testing we settled on a workflow that completely abandons Resolve as a transcode/ 1st lite engine.

My experience is that there is an enormous amount of information in the RAW signal that is tossed away by recording to Prores or by processing the dng files via Resolve. I am referring to both dynamic range and color- skin tone. Using ACR we can easily and quickly manipulate this information. What this means is I've been able to shoot actors in the Caribbean sun without control or fill and have a totally usable image by controlling the highlights and bringing up the shadows WITH GOOD PLEASING COLOR. Usually I will of course add fill but we've had a few remote breakway shots and when the actress was backlit by the sun it looked like her face was keyed by a couple of 12 or 18K hmi's shooting through silk or bleached muslin. The first time you see this you're stunned, but the next- well, that just how we roll now.

Personally I've not experienced this before, even when shooting with Alexas. This is a low budget action oriented movie (don't know the budget but best guess is @ 1 million) but using these inexpensive cameras shooting raw I'm getting the best, deepest, richest most nuanced skintones ever. And we're getting it with a 30-60 second adjustment via ACR. The best color comes from a 5DMk2 shooting raw with Magic Lantern. The color on human skintone blows away the Dragon (with current color science) and bests the Alexa (without a top notch colorist).

I don't know how everyone feels about this, but I was fuming. I felt cheated and robbed. The information, even with cheap prosumer cameras, was always there- it just had to be processed and released into the wild. One must take control of the image, especially in the debayer stage. It's not really about the cameras, it's about the processing power of computers because the workflow is a ***** and extensive- but the gains are enormous.

On the next feature I'll likely spec out FS700's shooting RAW over an Alexa if I can't get a big lighting package and crew to support it.

I'm not even thinking about the F65, F55, or F35 anymore. Because it's about the image processing, not the camera now. I am of course referring specifically to narrative work where you have the time to process and are fighting the budget with smaller crews, smaller lights, etc. Where turnaround is not critical.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top