FS7: Red Raven and FS7
- Thread starter Gene Sung
- Start date
starcentral
Veteran
Yeah I'm thinking weight for sure, and possibly better HFR too. The Raven or new Scarlet might be for me. EPIC/Weapon Dragon too much $, I'd go for used Alexa if dumping another $50k ++++ into a camera.
I love my F55 and all, but I can't rely on Sony (a broadcast company) or the release of 3rd party 3D LUTs to transform the color science into what I want.
I love my F55 and all, but I can't rely on Sony (a broadcast company) or the release of 3rd party 3D LUTs to transform the color science into what I want.
Ben Scott
Veteran
Amazing to think a new red camera shooting internal raw will weigh less than the FS7.
The Raven brain is 1.5lb. So including module and lens/monitor you'd be looking at under 3kg. That's incredible.
I don't feel I can rely on Sony to fix their bugs and have any sort of customer service whatsoever so unless it is game changing I doubt I will buy any other Sony camera again.
The Raven brain is 1.5lb. So including module and lens/monitor you'd be looking at under 3kg. That's incredible.
I don't feel I can rely on Sony to fix their bugs and have any sort of customer service whatsoever so unless it is game changing I doubt I will buy any other Sony camera again.
starcentral
Veteran
I too will never buy another Sony camera after the F3 and F55 I've owned. The F55 promised to be different, but at most I can go shoot some football games with it or stream some live 4K over fibre that I never plan to do.
When Sony can look like these images, I might change my mind:
When Sony can look like these images, I might change my mind:
One with a bit more DR
Omar N
Active member
Interesting point to make, though I am curious, can the Sony F55 really not produce images like that? They've used it on a number of feature films in Hollywood. One of my favorites was Ex-Machina. To me, it has just as cinematic of a look as any other high end camera. I used it to shoot a short doc a while back and was very impressed.
What about the Sony F55 image do you not like exactly? Just curious and wanting to learn
Ben Scott
Veteran
I can't speak for the F55, but my point is that those Red screengrabs of mine there weren't Hollywood. They were one or two guys and occasionally some nice art direction.
If you have the funds I'm sure you can make anything do anything. But I've not heard of the FS7 or the F55 ever being used where image quality was the single most important consideration, overriding everything else.
My personal fave use of the F55 was the 2015 Sue Perkins Mekong documentary.
If you have the funds I'm sure you can make anything do anything. But I've not heard of the FS7 or the F55 ever being used where image quality was the single most important consideration, overriding everything else.
My personal fave use of the F55 was the 2015 Sue Perkins Mekong documentary.
Interesting point to make, though I am curious, can the Sony F55 really not produce images like that? They've used it on a number of feature films in Hollywood. One of my favorites was Ex-Machina. To me, it has just as cinematic of a look as any other high end camera. I used it to shoot a short doc a while back and was very impressed.
What about the Sony F55 image do you not like exactly? Just curious and wanting to learn
Ex Machina was f65 I think
Harry Lime
Well-known member
ExMachine was primarily F65 with the F55 for shoulder mounted work.
Of course the F55 can produce cinematic images.
https://vimeo.com/96696423
ALEXA: LogC to Rec709 LUT
F55: SGamut3.Cine / Slog3 to LC709 TypeA LUT
starcentral
Veteran
Ex-machina, and most Sony shot hollywood films are 98% shot on the F65. The F55 might make it for some crammed corner of the room shot or green screen where 8K RAW is overkill, but the only few "Hollywood" movies I know completely shot on the F55 were Deliver us from Evil, and A Million Ways to Die in the West. Marco Polo, Big Bang Theory and Blacklist were some TV series also shot with the F55.
That aside, I'm not saying that without Hollywood behind a film production the F55 doesn't or won't look good (although for the record there are lots of people in the F35/F65 section of DVX who will say it doesn't). The F series can obviously look great, as can a Canon Rebel T3i, but for me at least there is something "photographic" in quality and nature missing from it no matter who shoots on it or how little or much money is spent around the production.
People will immediately say "it's the DP not the camera" etc.. but I just think that beyond all that, RED's color science is far more mature than Sony's will ever be and because of that you get a look from RED that can be much more "photographic" looking than the same frame out of a Sony without putting oodles of voodoo and magic into it in post.
What does everything think of this look?
https://vimeo.com/137400612
Stupid me.
That aside, I'm not saying that without Hollywood behind a film production the F55 doesn't or won't look good (although for the record there are lots of people in the F35/F65 section of DVX who will say it doesn't). The F series can obviously look great, as can a Canon Rebel T3i, but for me at least there is something "photographic" in quality and nature missing from it no matter who shoots on it or how little or much money is spent around the production.
People will immediately say "it's the DP not the camera" etc.. but I just think that beyond all that, RED's color science is far more mature than Sony's will ever be and because of that you get a look from RED that can be much more "photographic" looking than the same frame out of a Sony without putting oodles of voodoo and magic into it in post.
What does everything think of this look?
https://vimeo.com/137400612
Stupid me.
Last edited:
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I think the main 'problem' with Sony is that the ultimate goal of their color scientists is a very accurate and neutral reproduction of the scene being photographed. That cuts both ways. The good part is that you end up with a very neutral / clinical starting point from which you should be able to transform the image into anything you want. The other side of the coin is that out of the can it can look horribly sterile. Unfortunately photorealistic does not automatically equate interesting or aesthetically pleasing.
Arri set out to make a camera that basically was a digital incarnation of Kodak Vision and they succeeded brilliantly.
RED aims for their own look out of the box, just like film stocks used to have their own look (Fuji, Kodak, Agfa etc).
So, I agree that it is more difficult to get something really interesting out of the Sony cameras. It doesn't help that Sony's broadcast heritage will occasionally rear it's head, but I think it is finally dawning on them. slog3 and the LC709 TypeA LUT are a huge step forward for them. But they did seriously screw themselves for several years by not listening to the concerns of a lot of DoP that the output of their cameras looked too much like broadcast material. Or not properly supporting their cameras (Where are my #$%@ F3 LUTS Sony???) Change comes slowly in Japan. Hopefully we are on the brink of change.
I think it is a little too clean, but good work. I feel that Sony cameras and modern glass is a difficult combination to master without it looking sterile and lacking in character. Super corrected and sharp glass on Sony cameras is the kiss of death. It brings the worst out of the cameras. One reason why Ex Machina looked so good is because it was shot with ancient optics.
I shoot a set of Super Baltars on my F3 and it makes a world of difference. I also have my own DI process that does a legitimate amount of voodoo to 'un-Sony' the image. Here are some sample frames from a piece I directed and did the digital intermediate on. It was shot by Aymeric Montouchet. I screwed up the colorspace when I prepped it for vimeo, so the version that is on my website is not the final color and needs to be upgraded. It turns a nasty shade of red when uploaded to VIMEO for some reason and I need to recompress it (but my Mac died)... But these stills are correct.
Sony F3
Uncompressed slog1 10bit RGB 444 (Gemini 444)
B+L Super Baltar primes
LOL.
Last edited:
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
Not sure I agree with Harry about a neutral Sony look.
For me the Sony looks is charactised by super saturated blacks, hyper color and over sharpening. Both F55 & f5 exhibit this at times. The Sony look is a broadcast look , it has proven to be a money spinner for them for decades . This look can be found in digibetacams to the F55 & everything in between in TV stations, production units across the globe. It cannot be found in the F65/35 and maybe one could argue these cameras were not financial successes , so maybe that goes a way to explaining why Sony keeps on doing what Sony does.
The link Starcentral posted doesn't look like video , or film ......it looks digital. But you know what given audiences exposure to the disappearing medium of film do they even know, do they even care ....as long as the storyline works?
For me the Sony looks is charactised by super saturated blacks, hyper color and over sharpening. Both F55 & f5 exhibit this at times. The Sony look is a broadcast look , it has proven to be a money spinner for them for decades . This look can be found in digibetacams to the F55 & everything in between in TV stations, production units across the globe. It cannot be found in the F65/35 and maybe one could argue these cameras were not financial successes , so maybe that goes a way to explaining why Sony keeps on doing what Sony does.
The link Starcentral posted doesn't look like video , or film ......it looks digital. But you know what given audiences exposure to the disappearing medium of film do they even know, do they even care ....as long as the storyline works?
starcentral
Veteran
It doesn't have to look like film to good, not by any means. BUT there are some folk who just want their images to have a certain or specific look, I don't think anyone should deny them of that.
I never heard of Utopia - is it a doc, or film?
I never heard of Utopia - is it a doc, or film?
Harry Lime
Well-known member
I'm not clear where you are headed with this.
On one had you are saying that you prefer RED over Sony, because Sony cameras look like video / broadcast and RED doesn't.
And then you claim that RED cameras look more cinematic / filmic, which you prefer over the Sony broadcast look, but now you're saying that a camera does not have to have the film look in order to be good.
All of the frames that you posted have a strong film look and don't really look like video.
So, what are you really looking for in a camera? Are you looking for a camera that is dead neutral and you can swing in either direction? I'm not even sure if that exists.
Maybe we should just go back to the way it used to be and pick a camera (film stock) based on what look you are after.
Harry Lime
Well-known member
Ok, fair enough. But I still think that the Sony mantra is realism, not a baked in analog look.
I've seen some footage from the F65 that did look like broadcast. I also feel that the saving grace of the F35 was the CCD sensor, which naturally looks analog compared to CMOS. But the F35 still suffered from saturated highlights seen in broadcast cameras.
Ben Scott
Veteran
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utopia_(UK_TV_series) - A masterclass in embracing extreme looks for the small screen.
I want a GoPro to look like an Arri 65, but it ain't gonna happen.
Without wanting to be facetious, if you want your film to look like it was shot on film, probably best off shooting it on film.
If you want your film to look more 'cinematic' probably best off having better art direction and more creative lighting.
I want a GoPro to look like an Arri 65, but it ain't gonna happen.
Without wanting to be facetious, if you want your film to look like it was shot on film, probably best off shooting it on film.
If you want your film to look more 'cinematic' probably best off having better art direction and more creative lighting.
Ben Scott
Veteran
I'm not saying I prefer red over Sony. I'm saying my Scarlet had better outright image quality than my FS7 does in the sense that I find it easier to get the image in my head recorded.
I have never claimed that anything is 'cinematic' because I abhor the use of that word as it is a nonsense. 'Cinematic' is the culmination of about 4 or 5 different departments, dozens of people and a whole bunch of glass.
None of the frames I shot look like celluloid film, although some of them might look like they are from films, because that's exactly what they were. With the contrast ratios, care and art direction that comes with that.
I've seen awful Alexa footage. Awful red and Sony footage. And awful Super 35mm footage. None of those formats have the monopoly on good looking images.
What do I want?
Probably 2 different cameras.