So, the state of things in 2014

[SJX]

I know this is not directly related to F35 but again it somehow is and also the F65. This forum is also the only one to discuss high end cameras (F35, Genesis, Epic, F65 and Alexa).


Among 78 movies to be released in 2014 which are either mainstream, summer movies, blockbusters, or on lists of movies to look forward to online, these where the cameras used:


Alexa: 45 movies.

Film: 18 movies.

Epic: 12 movies.

Genesis: 1 movie.

F65: 1 movie.

F55: 1 movie . The odd duck, A million ways to die in the west.

I knew the Alexa had a huge stronghold on the market, but I didn't see the picture as being so dominant!


It's interesting that film seems to be still beating the RED. I'm sure RED is used extensively in indie stuff. But this was not what I was going for. I was trying to gather mainstream or movies with a sizable budget or with stars in it or at least with some buzz around them. But the interesting thing is that even here most movies using the Epic are in the lower side of budgets. Besides Hobbit there is really not any other blockbuster shooting on Epic being released this year. The expandables, Muppets or 300 are well known movies but not really blockbusters. Ok, 300 is at least $100 million. But besides these 3 the rest is pretty much smaller stuff at around $50 million or less.


But then we have the F65. I could only find one movie! That may explain why they are starting to sell for so much less used. It's really a pity when a camera such as the F55 which is technically inferior will probably start getting more use because it is either cheaper or smaller, which again mainly means cheaper to run. Although I don't see it getting much work in big movies when Epic doesn't seem to be getting that much. But it's sad that the F65 seems destined to be even more overlooked than the F35. I guess it says something about the market. People who invested in a F65 are having it rough.


But Arri has nothing to worry about. They totally dominate the market with their 2.8K camera, and not less.

By the way, the criteria I used to gather the movies was googling for summer movies, big movies in 2014, 2014 in movies etc. I went through a few lists. If it was in any of the dozens lists it's probably too small. I didn't just look for movies shot on each camera or it would pick up every obscure project in the internet.

 

[JMtheDP]

There are a lot of ARRI die-hards out there, the ALEXA is a damn fine product. It deserves to be at that point in the list.

I think the Genesis still holds the place as the first camera to seriously replace 35mm on films of that kind of budget - we lovely people benefit from that heritage.

I think the F65 was always going to be niche... sadly a lot of "cinematographers" can just not get past the "SONY" branding, pretty sure that is a much bigger reason than it should be.

 

[starcentral]

Annie 2014 with Jamie Fox is/was being shot on the F55.

People like the Alexa for the same reason the F35 is so highly liked here - it looks great and doesn't need all the ridiculous post work the new F series do.

Not sure why it deserves to be last on the list? Its a mighty fine camera and I have considered to trade the F55 in for a used Alexa many times but my faith has been slightly renewed lately with newer and revised post workflow that really improves the image quality of the F55 not really possible a year ago when I got the camera.

 

[combatentropy]

Could you tell me more, SJX, why you said the F55 is technically inferior to the F65? And starcentral, could you tell me more about the post work that you're talking about? I'm just curious.

 

[macgregor]

Could you tell me more, SJX, why you said the F55 is technically inferior to the F65? And starcentral, could you tell me more about the post work that you're talking about? I'm just curious.

Besides resolution, dynamic range and mechanical shutter... color science. THe F65 is Sony's flagship for a reason.

 

[starcentral]

Could you tell me more, SJX, why you said the F55 is technically inferior to the F65? And starcentral, could you tell me more about the post work that you're talking about? I'm just curious.

Not a lot of initial transform curve support from the get go but its better now. Still you need some advanced knowledge to get the most from it.

 

[SJX]

Annie 2014 with Jamie Fox is/was being shot on the F55.

People like the Alexa for the same reason the F35 is so highly liked here - it looks great and doesn't need all the ridiculous post work the new F series do.

Not sure why it deserves to be last on the list? Its a mighty fine camera and I have considered to trade the F55 in for a used Alexa many times but my faith has been slightly renewed lately with newer and revised post workflow that really improves the image quality of the F55 not really possible a year ago when I got the camera.

It doesn't mean the F55 is last because it's last on the list. The list is in order from most to least movies using the cameras. But coincidentally, yes, it's bellow all the cameras listed.

I didn't see Annie on any big movies of 2014 lists, or movies to look forward to lists, or must watch movies of 2014 lists. This is the first I'm hearing of it and why it wasn't on the list. You have to draw the line somewhere or we would have even operator owners little indie movies on there. But it has a famous cast so it probably deserves to be on the list. Although I couldn't find a budget. Wonder why the zero buzz with a cast like that. Not a good sign.

 

[starcentral]

I never saw any list, just what was listed in the shotonwhat website. I'm sure if more cameras were used on Annie that the F55 was probably the least like you say.

By the way where's Spike Lee's film shot with the F's last year? Anyone see any footage?

 

[SJX]

Could you tell me more, SJX, why you said the F55 is technically inferior to the F65? And starcentral, could you tell me more about the post work that you're talking about? I'm just curious.

What Mac said.

But if you want to see for yourself, watch the A million ways to die on the west trailer, The blacklist, Big bag theory latest season or even the trailer for Annie which I just watched. Then look at Oblivion.

About Annie, I was wondering why a movie with a cast like that which implies they have a good budget and is also a remake of a classic film would shoot on the F55. Then when I watched the trailer I saw it's a Sony Columbia movie. With Sony strongly trying to push the F55, it explains it.

 

[SJX]

I never saw any list, just what was listed in the shotonwhat website. I'm sure if more cameras were used that the F55 ws probably last like you say.

By the way where's Spike Lee's film shot with the F's last year? Anyone see any footage?

I specially avoided shotonwhat otherwise I would have to list every little project out there.

Spike's movie on the F3 looked like crap. I don't even think they tried. Haven't seen anything from the new Fs movie.

 

[starcentral]

Oblivion had so many VFX, in the end you don't even know if what you're watching is from the camera or CGI. They pasted faces much like Gravity from one article I read and guarantee the vehicles, etc.. were mostly scale models or CGI.

Why would you compare network TV shows to Oblivion anyway? A Million Ways To Die is only one film so far so overall its a pretty small sample set to go off of.

 

[SJX]

Oblivion had so many VFX, in the end you don't even know if what you're watching is from the camera or CGI. They pasted faces much like Gravity from one article I read and guarantee the vehicles, etc.. were mostly scale models or CGI.

Why would you compare network TV shows to Oblivion anyway? A Million Ways To Die is only one film so far so overall its a pretty small sample set to go off of.

A million ways to die is not the only film. Annie is also a theatrical release. F65 also doesn't have a lot of samples. But what we got is already very telling.

I think you are mistaking about Oblivion though. This was actually why I didn't compared to After Earth which is also F65 and looked great. But After Earth is much more difficult to tell what's CG.

Oblivion shot on actual locations in Iceland and if you google you can even find the locations and recognize them from the movie. Sometimes you can even see what was added by CG. It also has several non CG scenes like the cabin in the woods and Morgan Freeman's cave which were real sets. The cloud house was also 100% real. It was a full set and all done in camera. The environment outside was a projection screen. The helicopter looking aircraft was a full size prop too. Tom Cruise vs Tom Cruise fight shot in Iceland on location. Cruise ridding the bike on the planet's surface, real! Shot on location in Iceland. Pretty much all alien looking planet outdoors scenes was shot on location in Iceland.

So I think the comparison to Oblivion is very valid. But if you insist, then just look at the trailer for About Last Night shot on F65 and it still looks better than A million ways to die or Annie.

 

[SJX]

About pasting faces, I'm pretty sure it was in the Cruise vs Cruise fight where they had to obviously replace the double's head with Cruise's in the shot they are fighting on the ground. But the rest is real. The actors, costumes, location and lighting.

 

[starcentral]

I didn't know Annie was actually out yet, I will have to check out the trailer.

You don't think the final grade has anything to do with the "final look" for any film more than the camera itself? I highly doubt that. The budget levels for a film like Oblivion are going to be HIGHER all around, so they could have shot it on a PD150 and made it look good. ie. Oblivion's budget was nearly 3 times that of 'A Million Ways to Die'.

I personally don't care to get into camera debates (I hate my F55 to some degree) but I would suggest you at least try to be more realistic with your comparisons ie. TV network shows that flip over in a week vs. a $120 Million dollar Hollywood block buster.

 

[SJX]

I didn't know Annie was actually out yet, I will have to check out the trailer.

You don't think the final grade has anything to do with the "final look" for any film more than the camera itself? I highly doubt that. The budget levels for a film like Oblivion are going to be HIGHER all around, so they could have shot it on a PD150 and made it look good. ie. Oblivion's budget was nearly 3 times that of 'A Million Ways to Die'.

I personally don't care to get into camera debates (I hate my F55 to some degree) but I would suggest you at least try to be more realistic with your comparisons ie. TV network shows that flip over in a week vs. a $120 Million dollar Hollywood block buster.

Dennis, don't you know when something in an image is post production and when it's a camera limitation or characteristic?

I'm not saying the F55 is a bad camera. It is obviously better than the F3 because it has slightly more DR and does 4K and has lots more features. But F65 or Alexa it is not, no matter how much money or post work you throw at it. That's all I'm saying.

About you TV shows vs features complain, watch About Last Night trailer and see. I doubt it had a bigger budget than A million ways to die.

 

[Grug]

It's definitely tricky. Clearly any camera with F3 level performance and upwards should be able to make good-looking 'cinematic' images. But the simple reality is that some cameras seem to be trickier to finesse into 'cinematic' than others.

Looking over some of these trailers for 'Oblivion', 'About Last Night', 'Annie' and 'Million Ways to Die in the West' - it strikes me that the F65 seems comfortably able to reach 'cinematic', but the F55 needs a little more voodoo. 'Annie' certainly looks a step-up from 'MWTDITW' in terms of 'look' IMO, but it still doesn't grab me or impress me. Whereas 'Oblivion' and 'About Last Night' both look conventionally cinematic to my eyes.

But I think the tricky point, particularly with the F5(5), comes down to the simple fact that it seems like anything shot by the camera - would probably look better coming from an Alexa or Amira.

I have ZERO doubts that exceptionally beautiful images can be wrangled from the F5(5), but if it's so much trickier to do, I think eventually you have to conclude that there has to be some really compelling reason (price, HFR, lightweight, global shutter) to chose one of the new Fs over the Arris and the reliably 'cinematic' image they can deliver day-in-day-out.

 

[starcentral]

...don't you know when something in an image is post production and when it's a camera limitation or characteristic?

If you have done any work in post production on footages from different cameras, including DSLR's, you'd know that it is very possible to polish a turd and make things look "better" than they might first appear in-camera or on a monitor - even if shot on a "good" camera. There are some films out there shot with far less specs than we have with today's cameras which look highly cinematic and fantastic. Some of it is the DP, some of it the camera, and some of it is also post. Some of it is "voodoo" as Mark points out.

Interestingly enough, the DP from the Annie feature has primarily only worked on TV shows. Does that say anything about it yes or no? Oddly enough the DP from About Last Night (F65) was the same DP as A Million Way to die (F55). If the DP was the same does this speak to the camera, the stylistic choice of the grading made by the Director, or perhaps the desired look for the specific genre?

A ton of variables.

 

[Grug]

A ton of variables.

Just like Sony menus! :grin:

 

[JMtheDP]

I have to say I think the "MWTDITW" trailer is riddled with a very "video" feel - not helped by the shutter being open more than 180 degrees in a lot of shots (A massive bugbear of mine).

Also, I watched "sabotage" yesterday and the whole style of that felt and looked very much like a modern American TV series, perhaps not even as good as that. It was shot ALEXA, with Optimo zooms. Whatever they did, I don't know, but I would have thought it was C300 or something similar - it just didn't look very nice. Especially the outdoor shots, which is odd. Guess so much of it is in how you treat the camera.

 

[SJX]

It's definitely tricky. Clearly any camera with F3 level performance and upwards should be able to make good-looking 'cinematic' images. But the simple reality is that some cameras seem to be trickier to finesse into 'cinematic' than others.

I don't agree at all. No matter how much you finesse a F3 will never look like a F65. No way! Have you seen Battle Ground? I think that is as good as a F3 will ever look and it leaves a lot to be desired. It didn't look bad but I was constantly reminded I was watching a video.

Looking over some of these trailers for 'Oblivion', 'About Last Night', 'Annie' and 'Million Ways to Die in the West' - it strikes me that the F65 seems comfortably able to reach 'cinematic', but the F55 needs a little more voodoo. 'Annie' certainly looks a step-up from 'MWTDITW' in terms of 'look' IMO, but it still doesn't grab me or impress me. Whereas 'Oblivion' and 'About Last Night' both look conventionally cinematic to my eyes.

But I think the tricky point, particularly with the F5(5), comes down to the simple fact that it seems like anything shot by the camera - would probably look better coming from an Alexa or Amira.

I have ZERO doubts that exceptionally beautiful images can be wrangled from the F5(5), but if it's so much trickier to do, I think eventually you have to conclude that there has to be some really compelling reason (price, HFR, lightweight, global shutter) to chose one of the new Fs over the Arris and the reliably 'cinematic' image they can deliver day-in-day-out.

It's not about beautiful images specially that this is a subjective thing. The F55 is capable of great images. But F65 it is not and it can't be no matter how well shot or how well graded. This is all I'm saying. It's an inferior camera to the F65 and even sony knows and admits that!

But you hit the nail on the head when you say that the point comes down to the simple fact that anything shot by the F55 would probably look better coming from an Alexa or Amira. This shows it's the camera and not DP, grading or whatever.