So, the state of things in 2014

starcentral said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible to polish a turd but it still is just that, a polished turd.

The things you say naturally play a role. But when you see the same things, good or bad and over and over in a camera's footage, it's clear it is the camera. I see the same things I dislike in every F55 footage I've seen.

I think the best looking F55 footage out there is still Dig. But I know why. They seem to have avoided most of the things the F55 is not good at and even so it still looks like video. It looks great though. But not what I would call F65 great.
 
JMtheDP said:
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.
Click to expand...

"MWTDITW" is hideous. Probably one of the worst examples of F55 specially when you consider they had a budget.


I have not seen Sabotage yet. But I remember reading they were going for a docu look and used the SI2k and even the View Factor Novo a lot. So I would not doubt they also messed with the shutter and shot with a wider shutter.
 
SJX said:
I see the same things I dislike in every F55 footage I've seen. I think the best looking F55 footage out there is still Dig. But I know why. They seem to have avoided most of the things the F55 is not good at and even so it still looks like video. It looks great though. But not what I would call F65 great.
Click to expand...

I have deep faith. Something great will come along soon and hopefully by someone who actually knows how to maximize and fully leverage the F55 using ACES workflow in post. It might be a while.


Dig is probably amongst the best indeed.

http://vimeo.com/54571154

What do you think of Philip Bloom's 'La Tamise' shot on the F55 but to internal 4K XAVC 10-bit 422 codec?

http://vimeo.com/72343480
 
Both excellent but those sharp-n-clinical vids don't have the mojo of film to my eyes.

I suspect the F35 would do a good job of re-shooting the following film clip, but the F55 and other cams would struggle to achieve 'the look'

 
Last edited:
SJX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well of course you're never going to make one camera look like another, but I think if that's someone's goal, they're rather missing the point. The aim should be beautiful, compelling imagery - and the way to get that is always going to be about working with the camera you have to wrangle the images you want from it. And unfortunately there's no one-size-fits-all approach for that, you have to learn each camera's strengths and weaknesses and work around them.

I've got images from my F3 that I honestly don't believe would look any better coming from Alexa, the F65, Dragon, or even film - because I designed the shots around what I knew the camera could do, and from that was able to achieve precisely what I set out to do.

SJX said:
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.
Click to expand...

Naturally a higher-end, more expensive camera is going to be a superior camera to a cheaper one. You get what you pay for. But again, I think the solution lies in working with the camera you have. You can't change the colourimetry of a sensor, or the way it handles contrast or captures detail - those are just the innate properties of each specific camera. But if you know what you want to achieve visually, and you know how a specific camera skews towards or away from that vision - you can accommodate it in your lighting, filtration and colour grading.

In this ridiculously fast-paced camera market at the moment, I believe it's up to us to make these less-than-perfect cameras work for us - because clearly leaving the manufacturers to do it for us simply won't get us where we need to go visually. And until every production can afford the likes of an Alexa, it's either that - or we're out of luck.

What the Alexa does best, is create beautiful images with very little fuss - that's why it's far and away the most popular camera out there at the moment. It makes life easier. That said, I don't believe that means something like the F55 can't create images just as good; it has the raw materials for it: 4k resolution, wide dynamic range, 16-bit colour depth, and an enormous colour gamut - clearly the trick lies in finding out how to harness all of that raw potential to create the specific images we want to create.

If I can do it with an F3, I have no doubt I can wrangle it from an F55 as well. It can be done, it'll just take more work and a more in-depth understanding of how the camera responds to light and colour... which is why we keep having these endless discussions on here, the pursuit of knowledge!
 
SJX said:
I have not seen Sabotage yet. But I remember reading they were going for a docu look and used the SI2k and even the View Factor Novo a lot. So I would not doubt they also messed with the shutter and shot with a wider shutter.
Click to expand...

Actually I don't recall them using much open shutter, but the whole think looked and felt a bit amateur. Some of the stuff inside was lit nicely... but it felt a lot more like something shot REC709 rather than LOG. I can't possibly believe DoPs with this experience have stuff look like this, I was cringing. I get the "doco feel" bit, but this was a feature film - not a doc or mockumentary or whatever.
 
David Ayers did 'Sabotage' right? He loves handycams (End of Watch was shot on handycams, there's a great AC article about it), that seems to be the aesthetic he embraces so I can understand that, even shooting Alexa, his film would skew that way.
 
Yeah, that's the guy. As far as I could tell the majority of sabotage was ALEXA...there was a little SI-2K and some old video footage here and there but relatively little.

I don't mind the handheld-style per se, but you can still do handheld with it looking like a proper film. Obviously something I presume they didn't want.... just drives me nuts as I'd kill to have the budget I'm sure they had.
 
The differences I think have more to do with CMOS and CCD than anything else. Sony for the most part knows what they're doing, but soon as they stepped into the world of CMOS for their cinema cameras, there was quite a shift aesthetically, and they never recaptured the look and feel of the F23/35. Most of it comes down to the way CMOS looks in motion I think, it just inherently has what most people call the "video" look. CCD's help produce buttery smooth motion that's a bit more reminiscent of the way film feels imo.

I think the only CMOS camera that has more or less perfected the look and motion of the image to F35 level is the Alexa. Every other CMOS camera, all the RED's, Sony's, Canon's just simply have built-in CMOS characteristics that you can't get away from. If Sony puts out successor to the F35 in some way which uses a CCD, I think every F35 owner would be considering it.

Such a shame there really are next to no options if you want that elusive F35 look. There's really nothing out there to replace it and probably won't be for a while.
 
I'm not too convinced its about the motion, as there are other cameras that are cmos (like Alexa) which can have that "elusive" look that is closest to "film" similar to the F35.

Also the F55 has a global shutter and many would agree it still looks like "Sony video" so with the F35 personally I think the secret lies somewhere in all the sensor image data processing that goes on behind the scenes in the camera.. but I would love to really know what it is that makes it so damn filmic and unique.

I want to get this out of my F55. :crybaby:
 
Man, sell that F55 and buy up a set of 2 or 3 F35's Haha. Probably not the most attractive thing ergonomically coming from the F55, but it really sounds like you're serious about getting that "cinematic" aka F35 look and are willing to sacrifice for it. Most shooters I think are pretty practical and just need certain specs / requirements and they're good. Then you have F35 owners, who seem to be the exact opposite of that- going out of their way to shoot on one big ass bulky camera with less resolution (I know it's a 5k sensor) and dynamic range than other Sony's / REDs etc, because the image is simply that good.

No amount of color grading, post or pre-production / lighting will give you the unique subtleties that make up the F35 image. The day I can afford a basic package and the Nikon / EF plate, I'm jumping on it. Nothing out there like it. Aaton Penelope would have been the closest successor, but dream has sailed.
 
I've actually thought hard about an F35 but if I were to dump the F55 it would be for a used Alexa if anything. I still have the RAW module for the F55 to exploit which I've been too cheap to justify and for now mainly been seeing what I can get out of the 10-bit 422 XAVC internal codec.

Still I think shooting RAW on the F55 will unleash much more potential along with exploiting the ACES workflow which I honestly don't know if its even being tapped into for some of these hollywood films or network shows shot on the F55. I somehow doubt it.

Color grading and post production processing can not be thought of in the same manner anymore like it once use to when you talk about the F5/F55/F65. It's the same as RED coming out with new color science years after the camera was even launched. The Sony F55 at least with its ACES color space combined with s.gamut will have the ability to really transform in post and reverse out that crappy Sony sensor look.

See Nate's post for more details on it, he explains it quite well: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...hapter&p=1986437970&viewfull=1#post1986437970

Maybe the F35 for whatever reason didn't need all the voodoo in post and did it in camera, but that's also why it cost a cool quarter mil when it was all the rage.

I have faith in the F55, I have faith.
 
Jumping from the F55 to a used Alexa makes more sense for a lot of reasons than slotting back to the F35. More buzz, easier to sell to producers, HFR options, etc. To me the Alexa would be the better business move.

And I do think the F55 has the potential, but I haven't seen anybody crack that code yet. Maybe you'll be the one, Dennis. :)

In the world of CDDs, I wonder if anything will come of the Ikonoskop D-II now that they've been bought out of bankruptcy? I know it's S16 sensor size, but that's another camera that has such a gorgeous, gorgeous look. When the time came to buy my camera it was a close race between the Ikonoskop and the F35.
 
keithlango said:
Jumping from the F55 to a used Alexa makes more sense for a lot of reasons than slotting back to the F35. More buzz, easier to sell to producers, HFR options, etc. To me the Alexa would be the better business move.

And I do think the F55 has the potential, but I haven't seen anybody crack that code yet. Maybe you'll be the one, Dennis. :)

In the world of CDDs, I wonder if anything will come of the Ikonoskop D-II now that they've been bought out of bankruptcy? I know it's S16 sensor size, but that's another camera that has such a gorgeous, gorgeous look. When the time came to buy my camera it was a close race between the Ikonoskop and the F35.
Click to expand...

Ikonoskop has a solid look, and actually that's why I've warmed up to the Digital Bolex as well. That camera deservedly got some crap as initial footage was released during its development. But now, with more people getting their hands on it, I'm noticing that same CCD look from the Ikonoskop as well. Makes sense, since they're both trusense kodak sensors. There's some issues with the camera and DR isn't the greatest, but it does have a bit of that magic.
 
Last edited:
Is DR worse on D16 than it on Ikonskop? That would be somewhat surprising considering the same sensor.

I am very sorry to say I am just not a fan of the D16. I own an original H16 Reflex and something tremendous really urks me about the design, concept and notion of the D16. If it looked as cool and was maybe as practical/functional as the Ikonskop I'd be a little more on the fence.

But all the magenta footage and stills that surfaces, plus that clipped beach footage (shot by a pro DP apparently) were enough to keep me from the fence line.

Perhaps now that the D16 is officially out I need to hit vimeo and find me some new footage.
 
I'm surprised so many Alexa's are going up for sale - I assume it's from people trading up to Alexa XTs, but the XR module (which gives you on-board Arriraw) is only $4600-ish. So upgrading the original camera isn't an outrageous proposition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top