Pitching F35 to clients/production companies,

O

odshannon

Well-known member
Hey everyone,

Wanted to get your personal experience on how you're pitching your packages to clients and production companies eyeing you as DP. One of the things I've started to see come up is the need to deliver 4K. Though I've stated this camera has released numerous theatrical films and it's sensor is technically a 5k sensor sampled to 1080p I'm still noticing hesitancy with some. What have been some of your solutions to compete with todays market? I was thinking if client needs 4K could you just upscale to 4K at delivery since it was once 5k? Or am I seeing the sensor wrongly?

Thanks in advance,
-S
 
With so many fake 4K cameras (C200, C300 II, Varicam 35/LT, FS700, FS7, F5, F55, ARRI Amira/Mini/SXT etc.), upscaling the F35 true 2K/HD RGB 444 to 4K (bicubic or better scaler with a slight post sharpen) will be pretty competitive when compared visually, side by side to those other "4K" cameras. Compared to true 4K cameras, such as the VENICE, F65, Alexa 65, EVA1, Reds at > 5.7K, there will be a visually significant difference (need at least 5.7K photosites to truly capture 4K with a Bayer sensor). For green screen work, I've found 2K RGB 444 keys better than "4K" YUV 422 (C300 II). Note also most DPs would opt for upscaled ARRIs (not even 4K sensors) when the budget allows due to the superior color, DR, and highlight behavior (the Alexa LF at 4.4K has very good in-camera deBayering: is the highest quality non >=5.7K "4K" to date).

To really sell the F35, you'd show clients a side-by-side test with upscaled+sharpened F35 next to one (some) of the fake 4K cameras. Then when the client can't see a difference, show them the superior color, global shutter, highlight behavior etc.
 
While I always liked the F35, I didn't adequately appreciate the advantages until I got the camera in my hands and started working with the footage side by side with other cameras.

I've recently started talking to directors I like about the F35, and taking the long road with them, slowly showing them more examples overtime of stuff I am doing with the camera. The motion is quite nice. I am going to do a motion test along side the F55, since the F55 is a global shutter CMOS. The F55 has been one of my favorite cameras to work with, because of its ability to get through any type of day. But getting the F55 to look as good as the F35 requires grading, which means shooting in raw or 12bit+. Whereas, the F35 is already where I want it, and looks great in 10bit. Which can give the director confidence that what they see onset is what they are getting in the edit.

If a certain project comes up that requires naturalistic aesthetic, I will probably demand that it be shot on the F35.
 
Last edited:
jcs said:
With so many fake 4K cameras (C200, C300 II, Varicam 35/LT, FS700, FS7, F5, F55, ARRI Amira/Mini/SXT etc.), upscaling the F35 true 2K/HD RGB 444 to 4K (bicubic or better scaler with a slight post sharpen) will be pretty competitive when compared visually, side by side to those other "4K" cameras. Compared to true 4K cameras, such as the VENICE, F65, Alexa 65, EVA1, Reds at > 5.7K, there will be a visually significant difference (need at least 5.7K photosites to truly capture 4K with a Bayer sensor). For green screen work, I've found 2K RGB 444 keys better than "4K" YUV 422 (C300 II). Note also most DPs would opt for upscaled ARRIs (not even 4K sensors) when the budget allows due to the superior color, DR, and highlight behavior (the Alexa LF at 4.4K has very good in-camera deBayering: is the highest quality non >=5.7K "4K" to date).
Click to expand...
So very true.

A lot of people don't realize they rarely are even seeing true 1080HD on their TV's and computers. Most people assume every movie theater is 4K. The perception of resolution is skewed by jargon. I love resolution. I am very into pushing video into medium format resolutions. I absolutely love wet plate and Daguerreotype photography. The resolution in Daguerreotype is mind bending, with detail that goes beyond what we can see with the naked eye even up close. it is partially holographic too!. So, when I choose the F35 over a higher resolution camera, it is because the F35 is doing all the other things so well. There are few cameras that had a team of engineers that really understand producing an image for the human psychology.

The Arri's and the F35 are the only HD cameras that do not exacerbate the limitations of HD resolution. They have proper tone curves and do not over sharpen. And in fiction, the lack of resolution can be an advantage. As the Hobbit suffered from HFR, 4K, and weird grading, the costumes looked like costumes, the wigs looked like wigs, and the prosthetics looked rubber and makeup. While HFR 8K probably looks amazing, it would really demand a lot from the production team to trick the viewer into believing anything that isn't real. The more "true" cameras get, the more demanding it is on the actors and production to get things right. And since most content people watch is closer to 720p to 900p, there are advantages to staying with a camera that does motion, color, and tonality at the top of the game.


I think people look more attractive on the F35 than on pretty much any other camera I have used. Which typically HD is one of the worst resolutions for reproducing the human face. fine details are not captured without anomalies in Bayer pattern sensors in particular. Many digital cameras make skin look thin and brittle and create false detail. But the way the F35 captures tonality and responds to light, the human face looks great, skin looks plush, has thickness and a life to it. It is definitely an actors camera. If you are shooting Chameleons in a studio, go with helium, if you are shooting a dramatic narrative about people go with F35. ;) I suppose you could say it is a human camera.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the responses. I 100% agree that this camera will rival any "fake" 4k sensor and that we are rarely ever playing in a true 4k space with computers, web, and most applications...however, the 4K buzzword has taken over (at least in my industry) and everyone wants to deliver 4K. Seems like clients have latched onto this concept and since they are paying a pretty penny, they want to deliver 4K because "that's quality or future proofing content".

It sounds to me we should make a high quality test between upscaled F35 footage with some sharpening vs some 4K cameras to affirm that the F35 can still be implemented in today's market. ;) I don't have access to a lot of other cams but that would be a great video to win over the heart of whomever is unsure about the F35. I'd be willing to pitch in to make that happen if one of you LA guys/gals can get the ball rolling.

As for narrative, James, I whole heartedly agree. The reason I went down the road of the F35 was realizing that I was tired of feeling an inauthenticity to my images with other cameras. To me the F35 breathes an extremely human texture and skins seem to have that similar pop that film does so well. I naturally gravitate towards wanting to make observational human narratives so having a camera that already adds so much life is why I jumped at buying one of these beauties. I am eager to go celluloid so I'm hoping the F35 is a natural bridge to get there.
 
The main issue for most now is that, we've had such a bombardment of digital non organic looking images, that the Viewers have become accustomed to this look. So the things we see as DPs and visual artist in terms of texture, motion and \skin tones, the viewers will not necessarily see nor will it matter to them. For the average viewer its all content and less about the look. So Although I love the look of the F35, but companies are bowing to trends over a certain look.
 
odshannon said:
Thanks for all the responses. I 100% agree that this camera will rival any "fake" 4k sensor and that we are rarely ever playing in a true 4k space with computers, web, and most applications...however, the 4K buzzword has taken over (at least in my industry) and everyone wants to deliver 4K. Seems like clients have latched onto this concept and since they are paying a pretty penny, they want to deliver 4K because "that's quality or future proofing content".
Click to expand...

The 4K sensors are real (Bayer photosites), they just can't produce actual 4K content. If Netflix wanted an honest mandate for 4K content, it should have been for true 4K content, not fake 4K cameras which can't actually produce 4K content! Lol why aren't more people talking about this? :)

Is this 4K YUV 422 10-bit or upscaled 2K RGB 444 12-bit? (Canon 24-70 F2.8 II at around F5.6-F7. Watch in 4K on a 4K monitor with a browser that supports 4K, compare to watching in HD (also much lower bitrate))

Macgregor has some F35 4K upscales on YouTube, though I'm not sure he did any post sharpening. Shooting the same scene at the same time with popular (fake) "4K" cameras would be the most compelling: C300 II, FS7, Red at 4K, the best would be the F55 (top fake 4K camera from Sony). Definitely not the VENICE, Alexa 65, Red 8K or even the EVA1 (true 4K cameras): that's real detail though some folks may not notice a huge difference. Another factor is lenses (and OLPF in use). The recent VENICE and Alexa LF demos use the latest cutting-edge lenses (Leica Thalia, ARRI Signature Primes, Cooke S7/i(?) etc.). The sharpening has to be minimal to prevent aliasing artifacts and digital crunchiness. That's where the true 4K cameras shine: brilliant detail and no artifacts (e.g. the VENICE in Venice demo: breathtaking flawless detail).
 
So the reason you could afford to buy the F35 is that no one is going to use it for money projects. Everyone is obsessed with the K's and it's the file size that matter, not the sensor size or anything that computer in the box does to get to the end file. You have already figured out the answer: show them footage, let them see the difference. If they still only care about the K's let them rent. I like that the F35 is used less and less and considered over the hill, it only makes it more powerful for those of us who know the truth.

I went to Indonesia in 2014 to shoot an indie feature on the Red One, I could not convince the DP nor Director that the F35 would be more filmic than a Red One, they wanted 4k, we shot Red One "4K" it still looked great.

I found the 14-bit uncompressed 5k output on the CCD module, it's right there on the end of the ribbon cable a R G B connection coming out of the sensor block. Before it is processed by the F35 internal and compressed to 12-bit HD. Short of kidnapping the original engineers I don't know that anyone will ever be able to figure this out nor have the money for the project. Viddovation was doing some impressive stuff figuring out the signals on the IF box connection, who knows what is possible.

We are dumb artistic filmmakers who love the F35 and we need educated computer engineers, but they don't give a hoot about 2002 technology anymore.
 
Don't pitch the camera. Pitch yourself!

You can shoot a project with any camera available within the client's budget.

Hey we have an F35 available in-house.

Or we can select from these available outside camera rentals.
 
yachacha said:
So the reason you could afford to buy the F35 is that no one is going to use it for money projects. Everyone is obsessed with the K's and it's the file size that matter, not the sensor size or anything that computer in the box does to get to the end file. You have already figured out the answer: show them footage, let them see the difference. If they still only care about the K's let them rent. I like that the F35 is used less and less and considered over the hill, it only makes it more powerful for those of us who know the truth.

I went to Indonesia in 2014 to shoot an indie feature on the Red One, I could not convince the DP nor Director that the F35 would be more filmic than a Red One, they wanted 4k, we shot Red One "4K" it still looked great.

I found the 14-bit uncompressed 5k output on the CCD module, it's right there on the end of the ribbon cable a R G B connection coming out of the sensor block. Before it is processed by the F35 internal and compressed to 12-bit HD. Short of kidnapping the original engineers I don't know that anyone will ever be able to figure this out nor have the money for the project. Viddovation was doing some impressive stuff figuring out the signals on the IF box connection, who knows what is possible.

We are dumb artistic filmmakers who love the F35 and we need educated computer engineers, but they don't give a hoot about 2002 technology anymore.
Click to expand...

There's nothing extra to get on the horizontal as all the RGB values are indeed used for the final output (remember, no deBayering). 5760/3 = 1920. The vertical is 1/2 resolution after processing, however that won't get you to "4K" for those into the K's. Best solution is to show actual footage (upscaled + post sharpened) against the fake "4k" cameras where detail with closely match and other quality aspects will become apparent.
 
yachacha said:
So the reason you could afford to buy the F35 is that no one is going to use it for money projects. Everyone is obsessed with the K's and it's the file size that matter, not the sensor size or anything that computer in the box does to get to the end file. You have already figured out the answer: show them footage, let them see the difference. If they still only care about the K's let them rent. I like that the F35 is used less and less and considered over the hill, it only makes it more powerful for those of us who know the truth.

I went to Indonesia in 2014 to shoot an indie feature on the Red One, I could not convince the DP nor Director that the F35 would be more filmic than a Red One, they wanted 4k, we shot Red One "4K" it still looked great.
Click to expand...

That is sad. I've been recently having the same struggles in getting a director to shoot with my Sony PMW-F3.




David W. Jones said:
Don't pitch the camera. Pitch yourself!

You can shoot a project with any camera available within the client's budget.

Hey we have an F35 available in-house.

Or we can select from these available outside camera rentals.
Click to expand...

That is basically what I said.
You can choose between blowing your budget on a RED Weapon you've booked to rent.
OR
We can use my Sony PMW-F3 with another F3 I sourced for free (because no way were we going to accomplish their ambitious number of pages of script with only one camera! Another reason one RED Weapon is a bad idea), which means enough budget to get along a few competent crew members and a decent lighting package.

I am pleased to say we did the sensible decision and went with the F3 cameras!


 
jcs said:
The 4K sensors are real (Bayer photosites), they just can't produce actual 4K content. If Netflix wanted an honest mandate for 4K content, it should have been for true 4K content, not fake 4K cameras which can't actually produce 4K content! Lol why aren't more people talking about this? :)
Click to expand...
Those "fake" 4K cameras still have the perceptual edge over "non-fake" 2K cameras resolution wise.
While a "fake" 4K camera has a resolution of about 60% of 4K a "non-fake" 2K camera has 25%, a significant difference.
 
Cary Knoop said:
Those "fake" 4K cameras still have the perceptual edge over "non-fake" 2K cameras resolution wise.
While a "fake" 4K camera has a resolution of about 60% of 4K a "non-fake" 2K camera has 25%, a significant difference.
Click to expand...

Did you see the video I posted earlier in this thread? Is that 4K or upscaled 2K?

Do you have a link to a video demonstrating your point?
 
i’ll shoot F55, A7sii, and F35 for you guys. Maybe i’ll toss in a C200.
 
Do you all have any opinions on what to shoot to demonstrate perceived resolution?
 
James0b57 said:
Do you all have any opinions on what to shoot to demonstrate perceived resolution?
Click to expand...

Ideally replicate something like this (watch in 4K full screen! This is a 4.4K sensor with ultra-high quality post deBayer (likely using a very finely tuned OLPF to prevent aliasing artifacts, which allows for the deBayer process to be aggressive in extracting detail / microcontrast without looking digital):

And the ultra high detail shots here (6K sensor, ultra sharp lenses, deep DOF):

What's interesting with this shoot is ultra high detail combined with ultra shallow DOF. A dramatic kind of 'contrast' in detail. Ideas perhaps from the close ups:

While these are useful for technical analysis, online they tend to lead to arguments about the test being done wrong, unfair because different lenses used, etc. However when done properly/fairly, the charts show the truth about actual detail captured before aliasing (and extinction of detail- another area for debate):

I can bring a 1DX II and C300 II depending on day/time/location (+ an iPhone X, it shoots "4K" too ;) ).

For a friendly neighborhood camera test potluck lol, simpler will probably be easier to get done in a reasonable amount of time. Something like the ARRI example might be the easiest, provided sufficient subjects can be present. Perhaps there should be a studio audience with popcorn and snacks, sell tickets haha. Live stream it so armchair experts around the world can tell everyone how the test is being done wrong. Camera tests and their results can be quite dramatic ;)
 
I always found the simplest method was to simply list a couple of the $100 million films shot on it. My go tos for name-dropping were:

- Apocalypto
- Captain America
- Tron
- Real Steel
- Superman Returns
- Harry Brown

That a couple of them were shot on the Panavised version of the camera, never caused me any existential guilt, and (generally) if a camera's good enough for Marvel - I found that it was good enough for mere mortal productions.

Plus, at half the rental fee of an Alexa, it's appeal increases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top