F65: Mohenjo Daro - Indian period drama shot on Sony F65

VinceinLA said:
That just isn't a "period" camera. (Someone tell Woody Allen too)
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the camera, choosing Cooke S4(Storaro) and S5(Muraleedharan) is the mistake.
I just shot a period feature with my F65's, with a set of Super Baltars and occasional rear element netting.
I feel that it was quite simplistic to archive a 'period aesthetic' in the case of our film; the 16th century.
The look that we achieved was quite similar to the look of Aleksandr Sokurov's Film; 'Faust' which was shot on Eastmancolor.
 
Zsigmond James said:
It has nothing to do with the camera, choosing Cooke S4(Storaro) and S5(Muraleedharan) is the mistake.
I just shot a period feature with my F65's, with a set of Super Baltars and occasional rear element netting.
I feel that it was quite simplistic to archive a 'period aesthetic' in the case of our film; the 16th century.
The look that we achieved was quite similar to the look of Aleksandr Sokurov's Film; 'Faust' which was shot on Eastmancolor.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Super-high resolution sensors aren't the problem, it's how you treat them that matters - the glass and diffusion in front of them, and the colour work on the backend. These are the things that make the difference.
 
Grug said:
Agreed. Super-high resolution sensors aren't the problem, it's how you treat them that matters - the glass and diffusion in front of them, and the colour work on the backend. These are the things that make the difference.
Click to expand...

Sure in theory the 4k/16bit F65 image can be made to look however you want, but put Last Emperor and Cafe Society next to each other (both Cookes) and Vince's point seems about right.
 
I believe the Last Emperor was shot on film. All digital cameras would probably loose on that comparison.

Not that Vince doesn't have a point. The production the OP posted could have been better served by an Alexa. Or, simply by invseting more time in developing a strategy to achieve their desired result with the F65. The F65 is very different from the Alexa and very different from film. Shooting F65 as if it were an Alexa or as if it were film will most likely return what can be considered an overly sharp image. But hey, maybe that is the look they were going for?

I am of the philosophy that film was very organic. The way the grains are overlapped within the depth of the celluloid and the motion cadence is the benchmark for me. Since film itself is already so organic, it is more important to capture that organicness as cleanly as possible. However, with digital, even with the Alexa, I find that digital sensors are pretty sterile and so I rely on glass, filtration (and to some extent post-color) to make digital images more "organic" (vague term, I know). Also, I find that digital sensors tend to prefer soft lighting (this is pure unscientific speculation based on my experience of not being able to work with hard lighting as successfully with digital sensors). The Alexa, with its 2k image, colorimetry and gamma curves seem to work better out of the box, but I still think Alexa work can seem sterile...despite the great color.

For me, the 16bit 4k image of the F65 shines when using lensing and filtering as concious decisions to give character to the image. It is not so much about filtering to lower the resolution or the sharpness. There are many other characteristics that filters and lenses have beyond simply softening. So moving forward into higher and higher resolution sensors, I believe filtering and lenses will become more and more part of the cinematography workflow. Not just lensing for sharpness and contrast, but lensing for character...even "defects" to some extent. Embrace the resolution while infusing it with organic characteristics of real objects such as the glass lenses and filtration. This may be naíve of me, and I'll be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn still. But at the moment, that is my opinion. And even with my preference for the character of film and its inherent organicness, I still choose to work mostly with the F65.

I think the F65 gets a bad rep because most DPs try to use it as if it were film or as if it were an Alexa. The F65 is a very different beast and if simply approached with the same methodology of film or the Alexa, then it will probably return images that most of us will consider overly sharp.

Also, when in university we talked a lot about how video, because each frame is displayed longer than a film frame is displayed on a film projector, and video has no black space between frames, that our brain has, in a sense, more information and it doesn't do as much "interpolation" in the brain...and as a result, it makes the artifice of acting, production design and lighting more evident. In other words, video raises the artifice or makes the artifice of production more evident. Sure, a lot has changed since I was in university, but for me, I still have the question of:
--With higher and higher resolution sensors and more powerful display technologies, does that somehow put more pressure on production design, art direction and acting? Sorry for going off the deep end, here...haha
 
I think it looks pretty good. I think Storro has it right
http://www.filmanddigitaltimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/75FDTimes-Storaro-PassageToDigital.pdf

The F65 is his favorite camera.

Compare the above trailer with Hail Ceasar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMqeoW3XRa0

In terms of motion, resolution, smoothness - I also think with Storro there is a certain greatness in the image of the f65.

Please lets stop the bashing of this camera. If you want to live in a one-world digital cinema camera universe, go for it. Buy an alexa and make your money back in two months.
 
Why would anyone try to argue film isn't superior for so many stories, like the one above? WHY, seriously? Because this is a Sony forum? Because you can't personally shoot film? You just can't scrape together enough of an argument. Nets and other BS filters don't even start to compare to what Kodak stocks will do without effort. I could care less what some other DP thinks was right; he is very old, set in his ways and likes to argue to push his own agenda these days. That movie sucks and looks wrong.

Hey, I used to like Deakins a lot too, but after No Country, who cares what he shoots? Every film he has done since all looks very boring and typical, like any TV DP got the same job. Jesse James anyone? That's when he was at his peak. Chivo is the same way, since To the Wonder. You get older, you get lazy, it's just life.

Also, why would someone try to compare two trailers in that way? What are you, a 20yo wannabe who never studied any basics of cinematography or shot a film? Sorry Duckhunt, but that is just the most asinine thing I've read lately. I don't even know how to start to tell you why.

At least I'm not alone, even on a Sony forum, so thanks for the back up guys. I like what the F35 can do but it, and its brother, just aren't period cameras and never will be... nets, old lenses, or not.
 
VinceinLA said:
I could care less what some other DP thinks was right; he is very old, set in his ways and likes to argue to push his own agenda these days. That movie sucks and looks wrong.

Hey, I used to like Deakins a lot too, but after No Country, who cares what he shoots? Every film he has done since all looks very boring and typical, like any TV DP got the same job. Jesse James anyone? That's when he was at his peak. Chivo is the same way, since To the Wonder. You get older, you get lazy, it's just life.
Click to expand...

Wow, that was classy, man. I'm speechless. I haven't the faintest what do you do for a living but you must be more successful in your area than these three gents you managed to bash.
 
Now you have met VinceinLA, one of DVXuser's finest trolls.

"Screw Storraro, Deakins and Chivo - they suck"
"Man you probably have never shot on film to think you can compare a digital camera to a film camera."

A true cinematic genius, who clearly has shot tons of feet of film!

I have shot film, only kodak 5219 mostly these days, and with a good DI and lighting and filtration and lenses, the look isn't as good as shooting on Kodak 5219, it's sometimes better.

OH NO! Say it ain't so! IMPOSSIBLE! FILM IS THE BEST THING EVER!!!! IMPOSSIBLE!!!

VinceinLA, I'd love to see your work! And I've worked with Chivo. I'm sure he would get a kick out of this thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top