F55: Sony 4k commercial shoot with at RED camera

Status
Not open for further replies.
If you can't get a cinematic image from the highest image quality, most expensive, highest-end movie cameras like the FS700, F3, F5, F55, F35, F65, Reds, C300, C500, Alexa, Amira, varicams, then trust me, it's not the cameras fault :D
 
I'm sorry if my coment offend you but you missed my lime: "Nothing wrong with this look is just not cinematic" why you said it was a presonal attack? What I'm saying is the camera you using is not producing a pleasant look.

Viddovation said:
Wow. Simply wow.

You've unilaterally chosen to bring my personal demo reel as a Director of Photography into a discussion where it's absolutely not relevant. The list that I posted earlier was of Sony 4k cameras that had previously been in this dvxuser thread or could otherwise be considered viable market competition to the current RED cameras for cinematic and broadcast television production. My personal demo reel that you've referenced and dated clearly states that it is composed from a variety of cameras but primarily from the Sony PMW-F3 and the Sony F35 - neither of which record 4k, neither of which were in the list I posted (although I could give you quite a list for the Sony F35) and neither of which were previously part of the conversation in this thread.

Furthermore, you're using a compilation reel of my work for hire to make a point about camera technical capabilities and to suggest that Sony cameras are unfit or provide inferior results for cinematic work. You say all of this with amazing confidence for someone who doesn't have intimate knowledge of how that reel was produced, and the circumstances under which each shot from it was created.

I'm very grateful and incredibly lucky to work in this industry. I love what I do, and I try my best to stay knowledge and informed. As an independent owner operator I've worked my way up from a Canon XL1S all the way to a Sony F35 and Arri Ultra Primes. I'm blessed, and so incredibly fortunate. I've worked with a great many talented and visionary people, but as an indie owner operator, many of my clients have had bigger dreams than budgets. Like many of us here, that means "making do" and shooting under less than ideal circumstances with underwhelming support packages.

In building a demo reel, I choose to highlight the breadth of my experiences, even when it forced me to pull deeper in my archives. Indeed, some of the shots in that reel are from the Sony PMW-EX1 with a Letus Ultimate DOF adapter. Remember those days? And many shots on that reel were originally recorded in 35Mbps XDCAM-EX. Some of the shots on the reel are edited in from even lower quality codecs because I was unable to secure master grade footage from the editor or producer after the VFX and grading was completed.

Additionally, it should be noted that in many cases I do not do the color grading for work that I shoot. Therefore, the color grading reflects the talent and artistic choices of the colorist, director, and possibly producer - but not necessarily me. In some cases the "Hallmark" look was actually desired. Who am I to second guess my client who pays the bill? And if anything, a demo reel is an opportunity to show a broad palette, a range of capability if you will.

You don't have to like my work, and you're welcome to your abysmal opinion of Sony cameras. But your choice to use my demo reel as part of your argument not only isn't constructive or sound, it's downright rude. I'm no Roger Deakins. I'm no Claudio Miranda. I'm not even Phillip Bloom. Nor do I claim to be. What I am is a working professional who is part of a community. And I don't find it productive to compare demo reels when talking to other members here. Everyone has had different experiences and opportunities. More than once have I been jealous and amazed by someone's reel, only to find out they're also envious of an opportunity I had that they didn't. We don't shoot video in a vacuum. If the client doesn't foot the bill most of the shots on most of our reels wouldn't exist.

So please, let's not have personal attacks. And let's not tear each other down to make our points.

Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
He just criticized the work. Everybody is entitled to their opinion as long as they don't use offending language. He didn't. If he thinks the footage looks video-y and plastic fine, but I don't. I think that particular member's reel looks stunning, very pleasing. And I absolutely do not agree the f5/f55/f35/f65 look videoy or less filmic. These are the most expensive and highest end cameras in the world and they produce the highest quality images in terms of resolution, colour tonality, dynamic range, lowlight performance, low artefacfs (rolling shutter and aliasing) and they hav a very filmic and fine texture to the noise. Image quality doesn't get much higher than this and the images can be taken and graded to exactly replicate 35mm film or any camera out there.

I say it again, if you can't produce cinematic/filmic images with an FS700, F5, F55, F35, F65, Epics, Scarlet, C300, C500, Alexa, Amira, then it's NOT the camera's fault. My proof, people are producing filmic images out there with significantly inferior cameras down to Sony's own 300$ NEX.

Some cameras make it a bit easier and produce a film-like image and colour straight off the cards, like an alexa or an f35 or a Canon, but with all the other cameras the images are so robust and of high quality that in the right hands can replicate any look. And I mean any. I successfully matched FS700 footage to C300 with the exact same noise structure and amount, the exact same colours and resolution, and I can match it to any other camera if I wanted to spend the time doing it. If you can't properly process raw footage and get the image exactly where you want it, please use something easier like a C100 or a DSLR. They produce ready to view images straight off.
 
andycla said:
I'm sorry if my coment offend you but you missed my lime: "Nothing wrong with this look is just not cinematic" why you said it was a presonal attack? What I'm saying is the camera you using is not producing a pleasant look.
Click to expand...

For the following very simple reasons:
1. My work was not previously part of the conversation in any way, shape, or form.
2. The work you chose to comment on was not created using the 4k Sony cameras that were previously part of the conversation.
3. I do not beleive that you know me personally or are familiar with the conditions under which the shots in my demo reel were produced, graded, or edited.


If you had chosen to mention specific shots from the reel as not meeting your taste, we could perhaps have had a more informed conversation, but simply calling out someone's body of work and saying you don't like that camera they produced it on is in poor taste when they didn't ask for it. Constructive criticism may be one thing, but calling somebody out in this way is thoroughly unproductive. While I don't agree with the premise, do you realize that by making such a broad complaint you implied that in your opinion my past clients would have fared better hiring a different person? Which also shows ignorance of budgets, both for production and post production. Certainly at least a few of the productions shown in that reel would have benefitted from the RED - but only if they actually had the budget to hire one and to do the post work - at the time! RED One MX may be a fairly cheap workflow now, but that wasn't necessarily the case five years ago!

And if you can't appreciate the shots in that reel done on the Sony F35, I'm happy to put that on your eyes and your poor taste.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
Some cameras make it a bit easier and produce a film-like image and colour straight off the cards, like an alexa or an f35 or a Canon, but with all the other cameras the images are so robust and of high quality that in the right hands can replicate any look. And I mean any. I successfully matched FS700 footage to C300 with the exact same noise structure and amount, the exact same colours and resolution, and I can match it to any other camera if I wanted to spend the time doing it.
Click to expand...

To me, everyone just has a different definition of what is film-like and pleasing. To me, Canon C300 has a great baked in look which is fantastic for client ready stuff like reality, docs, events, corporate, etc... but for anything filmic, I would take S-Log FS700 + 7Q any day because it has much better highlight rolloff, at least 1 stop extra DR and it's very noticeable and I like the S-Log skin tones and neutral color much better than Canon's because the look isn't baked it.

I came from shooting Canon for years and I'm way happier with S-Log because I can make it how I want to make it, not how the Canon wants my shot to look. Yes, S-Log takes a bit more effort but if you know what you are doing you get something more unique. But yeah... with S-Log you definitely need to understand how to grade unlike Canon which is right out of the box.
 
Viddovation said:
I'm happy to put that on your eyes and your poor taste.
Click to expand...

Look this is personal and I don't feel offended by You.

You miss the whole point an took a camera comment personal. At this point I can't really help you to make you understand my remarks about how I feel of the image produced by Sony's: FS100-FS700-F5-F55


I took a look at your reel because that makes me understand where your comments and taste comes from. anybody can says: "I love a particular camera because is very cinematic" but if this person is a well know DOP or somebody with some examples, their comments would be more relevant (Your advantage here because I have't provided any own examples of what I think is cinematic and organic)


@gene_can_sing Matching a Still image is not enough to said you can match two camera how a camera interpreted and record motion, sharpness, etc and save that on any giving codec differ a lot one camera from another
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top