The Sony F65, thoughts and feelings of an F35 Addict

My work is always for clients, and generally the client doesn't want footage in the wild until their project has not only aired, but had some time to settle in the marketplace. Given that in many instances it takes years for a project to see release, I completely understand where JMtheDP is coming from here.
 
Viddovation said:
My work is always for clients, and generally the client doesn't want footage in the wild until their project has not only aired, but had some time to settle in the marketplace. Given that in many instances it takes years for a project to see release, I completely understand where JMtheDP is coming from here.
Click to expand...

Completely on the money, and very frustrating whenever I buy a new camera.

"Can I see some footage from it?"

No, I'm not allowed to show you.

Or, if they do see a project....

"Why does that look so much better than what you shot for us?"

Perhaps because that one shot in my showreel cost more than your whole short...
 
JMtheDP said:
To be honest I meant more the fact that good quality F35 stuff is still very large, and most of the stuff I have shot (not just on F35) I am not allowed to post anything more than a frame grab.
Click to expand...

Oh ok I misunderstood you.
 
JMtheDP said:
Or, if they do see a project....

"Why does that look so much better than what you shot for us?"

Perhaps because that one shot in my showreel cost more than your whole short...
Click to expand...

"Wow, why does their footage look so much better than what you shot for us?"

"Remember that lighting package I wanted but you didn't rent?"

"Yeah. Oh god, that was ridiculously expensive!"

"Well, they rented it. For a week."
 
Viddovation said:
My work is always for clients, and generally the client doesn't want footage in the wild until their project has not only aired, but had some time to settle in the marketplace. Given that in many instances it takes years for a project to see release, I completely understand where JMtheDP is coming from here.
Click to expand...

Yes this is very normal.
 
Viddovation said:
"Wow, why does their footage look so much better than what you shot for us?"

"Remember that lighting package I wanted but you didn't rent?"

"Yeah. Oh god, that was ridiculously expensive!"

"Well, they rented it. For a week."
Click to expand...

LOL viddo! So true and funny.
 
You said it SJX, not to insult anyone or anything close to it, but really the F35 just shooting a stop sign with some guy walking down the street (Mac's first F35 video post if I recall properly) looks like a damn film.

The F5/55 so far, no way. Not without someone who really knows how to get that look in post and judging what we've seen from Hollywood even they are not getting it. Maybe they just don't care.

The F65 - I also don't think will look "filimic" or like the F35 "out of the box". Not from what I've seen so far, but this is why I'm eager to see some more stuff shot by James.
 
starcentral said:
You said it SJX, not to insult anyone or anything close to it, but really the F35 just shooting a stop sign with some guy walking down the street (Mac's first F35 video post if I recall properly) looks like a damn film.
Click to expand...

No no no. This is not what I said don't put words in my mouth. :)

All can see mac is talented. I say mac make it look easy. Of course because he is talented. But yes F35 make good images easier too. But needs cameraman. Some cameras can't do with best cameraman.


starcentral said:
The F5/55 so far, no way. Not without someone who really knows how to get that look in post and judging what we've seen from Hollywood even they are not getting it. Maybe they just don't care.

The F65 - I also don't think will look "filimic" or like the F35 "out of the box". Not from what I've seen so far, but this is why I'm eager to see some more stuff shot by James.
Click to expand...

Yes oblivion is only good F65 example.
 
yes yes yes, he is talented for sure, of course. I didn't meant to say he isn't. I just know F35 has mojo that can't be replaced. Certainly not by the new F's.

:beer:
 
One thing I have also found is that when viewing stuff online, you lose a lot of the finer detail. It is that finer detail which gives character to a film. In particular, things like F65 do have noise and grain to them, but it is subtle. When you compress for the internet that is lost and it is a shame because there is stuff there. It makes things look a bit crap. I remember being surprised when I want from DVD to blu-ray at some films which were actually quite grainy, that i had thought were not.
 
JMtheDP said:
One thing I have also found is that when viewing stuff online, you lose a lot of the finer detail. It is that finer detail which gives character to a film. In particular, things like F65 do have noise and grain to them, but it is subtle. When you compress for the internet that is lost and it is a shame because there is stuff there. It makes things look a bit crap. I remember being surprised when I want from DVD to blu-ray at some films which were actually quite grainy, that i had thought were not.
Click to expand...

Scaling is the devil that people don't tend to think through. The 4k shooters are very quick to point out that if one needs to crop an image, 4k gives you more data to do it with. Which is true. However, unless you scale in divisions of two, you're going to have to do lossy interpolative math. If you scale in divisions of two you can either line skip or add and average, and you'll get sharp results. (2160/2 = 1080, etc)

But when you crop just 10% or 15% to remove a microphone? You're going to have lossy results.

And let's say you do have full 4k files, 4096 horizontal lines, and you need to do a BluRay delivery in 1080x1920? 4096/1920 = 2.133~
You either have to crop down from 4096 to 3840 and divide by two, or you're going to scale. And if you scale, then you're pretty much obligated to vertically scale as well. And while 4k starts at 4096x2160 and 2160/2=1080 ... well, if you just scaled horizontally, and you scale vertically, now your 2160 vertical lines source needs to be mapped to 1012 of 1080 veritical lines in 1080.

Is that really ideal? I've seen 4k shooters scoff at UHD as not being true 4k, but given the very real fact that most people view at home and UHD and 1080HD are the common viewing formats...

The BluRay for TRON Legacy was hailed by the home theater enthusiasts as one of the best BluRay releases, period. In terms of clarity, sharpness, color, detail, etc. They loved it. If you think about all of this scaling math it just makes sense - If you can shoot an optimized format, and use the same format without scaling for end viewing - it'll be the best of all worlds.



EDIT:

This is also part of the reason why many complain that 2k RED footage doesn't look sharp or detailed in 1080p. 2k is 2048x1080. If you try to scale to fit 2048 into 1920... it's lossy, lossy interpolative math.
 
Last edited:
Viddo

You're absolutely right - sadly the people demanding 4K rarely realise the whole argument.

I see it in the automotive world, people going out and buying brand new cars on finance because "they couldn't afford fuel on the old one" and now they're paying £200 a month just for finance, much more than the old one ever cost in fuel.

I tear my hair out when I hear people saying you can crop/reframe in 4K - it is absolute nonsense. I have yet to meet the camera where I would feel comfortable doing that. Sure, once in a while it is unavoidable, or whatever, but a lot of people seem to be implying that with 4K you can just "shoot one wide and crop all your angles" - it really is a fundamental lack of understanding of how these things work.
 
From what I recall the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was shot on an EPIC at 4.5K and 5K resolution but underwent reframing to 3600x1500 for stabilization, scaling and repositioning; and even still the film still released in theaters as "4k".

It might not be "good" math but it happens more often than is thought.
 
starcentral said:
From what I recall the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo was shot on an EPIC at 4.5K and 5K resolution but underwent reframing to 3600x1500 for stabilization, scaling and repositioning; and even still the film still released in theaters as "4k".

It might not be "good" math but it happens more often than is thought.
Click to expand...

Absolutely it's done all the time. And I've tried not to call the math "good" or "bad" - that's a subjective attribution. Rather, I've described it as "lossy interpolative math" which I beleive is quite accurate. If I give you a 10x10 pixel image and tell you to remap the same image into 9x9 pixels, you can absolutely do it - but it requires all sorts of fractional math that results in blurred edges and muddied colors. You can then map the 9x9 pixels back to 10x10, but you'll get even more interpretive loss.

The exact same thing happens when you convert 100x100 pixels into 90x90 or 1000x1000 into 900x900 and vice versa.

And in the case of reframing, sure - I can take the 10x10, crop 7x7 out of the center (approximately) and map that back to 10x10... but again, there's going to be interpretive loss.

Whether or not the degree of loss is acceptable is really subjective. For Dragon Tattoo with David Fincher, you're talking about experienced industry pros with a heck of a budget behind them and a very well thought out post workflow. Just because it worked for them doesn't mean it's the same for a 50k or 200k indie flick or a 5k regional commercial shoot.

Here's an article on the Dragon Tattoo stuff: http://library.creativecow.net/kaufman_debra/The-Girl-with-the-Dragon-Tattoo/1
 
Will check our the link for a refresher.

I also seem to recall James Cameron was a stabilization fanatic, going quite nuts including post to get absolutely super smooth shots. At least I think it was him, been a while since I read some of this stuff.

Me, I've been shooting 4K on the F55 and doing downscale to HD for delivery. To.deal with aspect ratio differences I will either crop the left and right edges for a full 16:9 frame, or I will fit it to the right width and have to deal with bars on the top and the bottom.

I'm not huge on reframing in post, as I typically know what I want to frame, but there have been times a "creative decision" is made in post and a blowup to CU is made from a MED shot and it is hard to spot. I've even blow up 720p to 1080p(a 50% post zoom) and it has a subtle softness to it that most viewers wouldn't pickup on.

You can never really end up with more than you started with (ie. The new 4K Amira) but the algorithms for scaling even up never mind down are quite impressive.
 
See, this is where you really get into hot water. Because so many people don't see the difference between "4K" from the F5, "4K" from the F65/Dragon, "4K" from a 65mm film scan, or "4K" from an upscaled source like an AMIRA, they just assume the same thing might apply to all.

Now, I'm sure the AMIRA produces an interesting 4K with that "softness" that so many people claim to like about the ALEXA (guys, it's just lower res), but the problem is if you start reframing/cropping that, you're going to run into trouble a lot quicker than doing the same from, say, F65 footage.

I personally wouldn't even crop into F65 footage as I believe it is already only on the edge of what is acceptable 4K.
 
If the output is 2K or 1080p, does cropping 4K (say to 125%) really make a difference? I've done some tests in Premiere - in a 1080p timeline at 50% and 51% (from a 2160p original), then put them side-by-side at 100%. I see no perceptible loss in quality whatsoever even though the 51% should be essentially resampling the entire image. Theoretically cropping/zooming on 4K footage is a bad idea, but in practice, in every scenario I have tested on, it seems to make no difference. I suspect that if the output was somewhere between 2K and 4K, it might make more of a difference, or if there was a particular fine pattern in the image that may cause issues as well.
 
Nick Royer said:
If the output is 2K or 1080p, does cropping 4K (say to 125%) really make a difference? I've done some tests in Premiere - in a 1080p timeline at 50% and 51% (from a 2160p original), then put them side-by-side at 100%. I see no perceptible loss in quality whatsoever even though the 51% should be essentially resampling the entire image. Theoretically cropping/zooming on 4K footage is a bad idea, but in practice, in every scenario I have tested on, it seems to make no difference. I suspect that if the output was somewhere between 2K and 4K, it might make more of a difference, or if there was a particular fine pattern in the image that may cause issues as well.
Click to expand...

You'd have to have a sharply focused very fine pattern before the test you constructed would show visual results. And even then, you might need to sit pretty close to the screen or zoom in to see the difference.

Theoretically resizing digital images is a destructive process. Practically speaking, you may not visually perceive the first several generational changes.

My point wasn't to really say "don't resize 4k footage". This is the F35 forum afterall. My point is more along the lines of "you're not comparing apples to apples if you claim that downscaling 4k is going to look better than optimally captured 1080p with a camera like the F35"
 
So Jim how are you making out with the F65, how do you feel the image truly compares to the filmic look and feel of the F35?

Would love to hear some thoughts.
 
Dennis

I would say the spirit of the F35 is alive and well in the F65. There are many things about the 35 I certainly miss, as detailed in earlier pages of this thread, but this feature I'm on is generally going well.

I'm mainly wrestling with the vastness of the files produced, getting a good, speedy workflow nailed down is proving to be tricky. However, the F35 was also difficult to begin with.

I am going to ask production to let me post some stills, or perhaps even video, fairly soon. There is a nice range of stuff for you guys to see.

JM
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top