F65 Getting Cheaper
- Thread starter eddavid
- Start date
starcentral
Veteran
From what I remember color temperature was tweaked, some gradations added, and slight crush of blacks. I had used Cinegamma 1 which is great for outdoor sunny / direct sun conditions.
Back to the F65.... anyone considering to buy one for real? What a beast. I got a sneak peak at it before it was available and remember thinking shoulder mount would be challenging.
Back to the F65.... anyone considering to buy one for real? What a beast. I got a sneak peak at it before it was available and remember thinking shoulder mount would be challenging.
SJX
Veteran
Thing about the F65 is that if all you are finishing for is HD you basically can't tell much difference. Looking at the Oblivion blu-ray and Real Steel, it's hard to say it's that much sharper. I guess it has a bit more of dynamic range?
But it' not really much cleaner in low light either. Probably because the much smaller pixels since the sensor has more megapixels. To top it off, highlight roll off and rendition looks nicer on the F35. F65 looks basically like F55 when it comes to this. I think the F65 looks better than the F55 and skews more towards the F35 than to the F55 but somehow the image is more like that F55 cold-ish video-ish look.
Then the weight and bulk. I would only get a F65 when I know for sure all I will finish for is 4K, which for most is at least a few years off.
But it' not really much cleaner in low light either. Probably because the much smaller pixels since the sensor has more megapixels. To top it off, highlight roll off and rendition looks nicer on the F35. F65 looks basically like F55 when it comes to this. I think the F65 looks better than the F55 and skews more towards the F35 than to the F55 but somehow the image is more like that F55 cold-ish video-ish look.
Then the weight and bulk. I would only get a F65 when I know for sure all I will finish for is 4K, which for most is at least a few years off.
starcentral
Veteran
Imagine this on your shoulder:
photo from Toronto CSC meeting Sep 2011
photo from Toronto CSC meeting Sep 2011
starcentral
Veteran
By the way that guy to the right is one of the Sony engineers, I got to meet him and shake his hand.
hscully
Veteran
It seems to be just me, but I find the picture from the F55 to be very beautiful, true to color, and from the daylight exteriors I've seen, very good at rendering highlights. A guy I'm working with showed me some of his F55 footage on a short film and the skies were perfect with excellent detail in the clouds and the blue sky popped while the highlights and skin tones were fantastic. It is a very crisp look but I think it's a different, modern digital aesthetic. If you look at The Blacklist, which is shot on it, the apartment interiors and the daylight exteriors are splendid. The skin tones are beautifully accurate and the sharp eyelight remind me of some films from the 90s - sharp and clean. The CIA office stuff is stylized with light and shadow in ways I find unappealing but the straight up stuff looks fantastic to me. The goal hasn't always been creamy and poetic even for film.
The Good Wife, also very beautiful, is shot on Sonys but IMDB has it listed still as F35. Does anyone know if that's still correct? It's hard to imagine they haven't updated to F55 or F65.
starcentral
Veteran
I've said it before but I don't think there are any cameras like the F35 and Alexa which inherently produce smooth highlight roll offs. Just a small grade in post and BANG you're off to the races.
With F3 F5 F55 and F65 however its an entirely different case. You get the image right off the sensor and it takes a lot of magic in post to really crank out a decent looking image from it, in most cases work by a professional colorist who knows what they are doing. This has been a HUGE point of frustration by owners and in some cases even disbelief about what slog has to offer on the newer Sony cameras. Many of us lighting and shooting are not professional colorists so when results are crappy we blame the camera. The fact is that the F55 and F65 share the same CFA and ultra wide color gamut which according to Sony produces a color space higher than even film is capable of. So if you shoot with either of these cameras and the image doesn't come out good, I would say its on the user error side of things.
A year later I went back when I knew a bit more what I was doing (and i don't claim to be a colorist or professional at it) and re-graded a few frames from the F55 and this is what I came up with. Ignoring the obvious color grades look at the highlight renditions in each example.
Click for uploaded version. Note uploads are 1/4 scale versions of the original 4k frame
Last edited:
macgregor
Veteran
Hi SJX, sorry to contradict you a bit here.
THe F65 does have much more DR than the F35, specially in the shadows. The noise is much lower also. And it's a higer sensitivity camera. The F65 produces footage that I consider much better than the F55. At current prices, I'd much prefer to buy a F65 over the F55.
For a 1080p finish there is not going to be much difference in resolution, because the F35 is already producing as much as 1080p is capable of showing.
The F65 however does not inherit the Geneis/F35 film look unfortuntely. However I have to admit that Oblivion looks fantastic.
SJX
Veteran
Mac, I don't think you are really contradicting me. We seem to agree more than disagree here. I did say and think the F65 looks better than the F55. I would take the F65 over the F55 in a heart beat.
But in my opinion the way it handles light is more similar to the F55 than the F35.
The rest, I was just going off comparing Oblivion (F65) to Real Steel (F35) since I haven't shot with any of the two. Oblivion low light scenes showed quite a bit of noise, like you would expect from the F35 and nowhere as clean as Alexa. Not as bad as the F35, but honestly not something that would make me choose it over the F35 either. But yes, shadow detail is the F35 Achilles heel. Better have light! In HD you can barely tell any sharpness difference. Dynamic range I wasn't sure. This is why I asked. I knew the F65 had more than the F35. I just didn't know how much because I have not shot with the cameras and it's hard to judge from films because if the DP was doing his job it shouldn't jump on you.
All together I don't care if the F55 and F65 are supposed to be technically superior. I like the images from the F35 better. But I don't even think the F55 is really technically superior. It's just different. The F65 is definitely technically superior.
Last edited:
SJX
Veteran
Thanks for posting the frames. They look really good. I don't like criticizing other people's work. I will just say that it has a "REC709" type of look which I'm not fond of and this is what I like about the way the F35 handles light. It handles it differently.
starcentral
Veteran
The purpose of posting the frames were to show just how much difference in highlights there can be between a "bad" sloppy grade and a "good" grade. Look how harsh, crisp, and ugly the highlights in frames 2 and 4 are. In 1 and 3 they are smoothened more dramatically.
You can say the F35 handles light differently, yes it does. But that does not mean you can't get the same look in post. Give the same frames to a professional colorist who knows what they are doing and they would easily be able to get a look the same as the F35 or Alexa.
You can say the F35 handles light differently, yes it does. But that does not mean you can't get the same look in post. Give the same frames to a professional colorist who knows what they are doing and they would easily be able to get a look the same as the F35 or Alexa.
Last edited:
Viddovation
Veteran
By the way, much of Oblivion was shot in the sky house. You might think that was done on green screen, but it wasn't - the clouds in the background were actually projected. And they ran the lenses wide open to get enough light from the projectors. That may have also influenced the degree of noise and ISO decisions.
SJX
Veteran
It's not about being creamy. There are stuff from the F35 which is not creamy and pretty at all, such as Harry Brown. But it still looks better. Creamy is more about lens and filter choice than camera. I don't know. I just don't like the way the F55 handles skin and highlights. I think it gives skin a plastic look.
It's personal opinion but I like this way better:
than this:
Maybe the show runner or DP just doesn't feel it would be an upgrade.
Attachments
Last edited:
SJX
Veteran
I'm not so sure about that. They can change the post process but not how it handles light. This is inherent to the sensor. They can get darn close. But then again, why would I spend the time and money on post when I can have it "in camera"?
By the way, I like frame 1 the best.
Last edited:
SJX
Veteran
Yes, watching the making of is great fun. That movie is very well made.
But I mean the scenes in Morgan Freeman's cave hideout. Quite some noise there.
By the way, found this frame from The Blacklist. Not that clean either I think:
Grug
Veteran
I'm not quite sure what it is about the F5(5)/F65's image that doesn't sit right with me, but somehow the image they produce looks and feels 'thinner' than F35/Alexa. It may just be the ultra-fine detail they capture bringing back visions of small-chip HD and 'reality' to my mind, but very few people seem to have been able to conjure up 'filmic' images from the cameras thus far - in fact I think I've seen more convincing results from people shooting with the F3 in SLOG (which seems odd, but perhaps the slightly softer image has something to do with it?).
I have an F5 on the way, and it was a hesitant purchase for me - outstanding feature-set (which is what drove me to it), but an iffy aesthetic. I'd have been much happier if my budget could have stretched to Amira (which I wouldn't hesitate to choose over the F55/F65 - tech specs be damned, the image is nicer).
Personally, I'm firmly of the mind that all digital capture requires diffusion, and I'll be sticking to that with the F5 more-than-ever. I just hope I can get similar results to what I got from the F3 with SLOG - if I can manage that much at least, I'll be content.
I'm thinking the must-watch film of the season is the Tiffen 4K diffusion tests that Stephen Murphy shot on th F55. I'm hoping that will shed some light on how to get more 'life' out of the images from these cameras.
I have an F5 on the way, and it was a hesitant purchase for me - outstanding feature-set (which is what drove me to it), but an iffy aesthetic. I'd have been much happier if my budget could have stretched to Amira (which I wouldn't hesitate to choose over the F55/F65 - tech specs be damned, the image is nicer).
Personally, I'm firmly of the mind that all digital capture requires diffusion, and I'll be sticking to that with the F5 more-than-ever. I just hope I can get similar results to what I got from the F3 with SLOG - if I can manage that much at least, I'll be content.
I'm thinking the must-watch film of the season is the Tiffen 4K diffusion tests that Stephen Murphy shot on th F55. I'm hoping that will shed some light on how to get more 'life' out of the images from these cameras.
hscully
Veteran
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?
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?
Last edited:
Grug
Veteran
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.