F65: Why the F65 is better than the F35

SJX likes the look of f35 more than F65.
abreu-canedo gives several technical reasons why the F65 is superior to the F35.
Meesepiece is an idiot.

Abreu-Canedo has used the f35 and owns a f65.
Meesepiece has both the f35 and f65.

SJX has no links to his work online and does not seem to own the f35 or f65, and I do not know if he has every used either one.
He is basing his opinions off some movie trailers he has watched on Youtube.

Ah, dvxuser, I love you.
 
Last edited:
michael-jackson-popcorn-meme.jpg


Don't you people understand? The ARRI and RED boys, this is what they want, they want us to fight amongst ourselves. We need to fight the real enemy!

judea_2673102a.jpg
 
JMtheDP said:
Don't you people understand? The ARRI and RED boys, this is what they want, they want us to fight amongst ourselves. We need to fight the real enemy!
Click to expand...

What? And support The Sony People's Front?! Wankers! We're the People's Front of Sony!
 
LOL this meese guy is funny guy. I don't own a F35. LOL. James please educate the new guy who join Dec 2015.

Meese and abreu-canedo basically say is ok for them to defend F65 but not ok for me to defend F35. But at least abreu-canedo know stuff and understand technical. Meese makes thread with stupid title and I'm the bad guy. LOL. Acid is wild.

Meese replied to my thread when I talk about bluray and think I'm watching on youtube to judge. He really want to believe his own things that he ignores all details.

Proof is in pudding. All movies have blurays out. Go watch. I don't need to defend. Is there. My work make no difference. My work don't change fact more F35 movies look better than F65 movies. Only Oblivion look good. All other F65 movie look like video. Is there. I don't make this up.

This will be my new signature now:

Can you say why more movies look bad with F65 than F35? Bad DP? Stupid AC grabbing wrong lens? Amateur colorist doing all wrong? A bit of the camera's fault? What is more probable?

Nobody answered because the answer is clear.

Yes I too love dvxuser.
 
SJX said:
LOL this meese guy is funny guy. I don't own a F35. LOL. James please educate the new guy who join Dec 2015.

Meese and abreu-canedo basically say is ok for them to defend F65 but not ok for me to defend F35. But at least abreu-canedo know stuff and understand technical. Meese makes thread with stupid title and I'm the bad guy. LOL. Acid is wild.

Meese replied to my thread when I talk about bluray and think I'm watching on youtube to judge. He really want to believe his own things that he ignores all details.

Proof is in pudding. All movies have blurays out. Go watch. I don't need to defend. Is there. My work make no difference. My work don't change fact more F35 movies look better than F65 movies. Only Oblivion look good. All other F65 movie look like video. Is there. I don't make this up.

This will be my new signature now:

Can you say why more movies look bad with F65 than F35? Bad DP? Stupid AC grabbing wrong lens? Amateur colorist doing all wrong? A bit of the camera's fault? What is more probable?

Nobody answered because the answer is clear.

Yes I too love dvxuser.
Click to expand...

Hi SJX,

I am not saying what is ok for people to do or not. You should feel free to do what you want here, within the guidelines of the forum. You are even allowed to defend whatever camera you want.

I want to contribute my opinions and technical facts to the discussion. Not in defense of a camera, but as a way of clearing up statements that are not entirely sound. But I am not trying to convince you to change your mind, nor am I trying to defend any camera. Again, just clarifying some technical issues, and trying to steer the conversation back into stating opinions and exchanging facts...as opposed to the personal insults that were beginning to arise.

I'm a lover of all cameras, regardless of color, brand or creed...hehe.

Why have more better looking films been made with the F35 than with the F65? I personally think that is a great question. Worth exploring. However, if instead of a question you lose this as a general affirmation, well, I am not sure that I even agree with that statement, but that is only because I haven't taken the time to objectively watch them all in a format through which I could feel comfortable judging. But...assuming you have done this and that indeed you are right that more good looking films have been made with the F35, which could be true, I cannot go and make any assumptions about why. So if that means that the F35 is the better camera to you, hey, I'm ok with that.

Again, I am not coming to the defense of a camera, as I have said before, different cameras are going to be better for different productions. That is just my opinion.

But you know, when I give my opinions on this forum, I disclose my real name, my website, my work and resume, so that people can ground my opinions within the context of who I am, the work I have done, etc. This is important. A lot of folks here making slanderous comments anonymously, which is easy to do. I would ask everyone who is anonymous on the forum to use their real names, have examples of their work readily available, so there is some accountability for what is said here. it is easy to tell people that they don't know what they are talking about when you are anonymous.

I know you are going to read this as an attack to you. And I don't blame you if you think this because I probably would think the same thing. But if you actually read this objectively, you will see that I actually respect your opinions, am encouraging you to express them, and am actually outlining steps that may help you become a more generous member of this community.
 
Last edited:
This is one of those threads, isn't it? The ones you know you shouldn't reply to because you won't come out unscratched, but misinformation spread around makes you itch to contribute, as well as some intelligent posts among the storm make you want to partake.

Well, I have no intention of getting in any heated back and forth. But I thought I would share my thoughts. These "my camera is better than yours" threads seldom are any productive. I have to agree with Yachacha that the title is a very unfortunate one to start with. Not only that. It's also inaccurate. Not only because better can be subjective but because better can also be compartmentalized. Better at what? For what type of production? I certainly would choose the F35 with it's 444 sensor over the F65 with it's 422 sensor if I was shooting green screen. The nature of green screen production being a controlled environment any advantages the F65 may have would be trumped by the F35 444 resolution. It matters not if a camera records in a 444 format if the sensor is 422. You can't perfectly make up info you don't have to begin with.

But camera choice today can mostly be subjective because any camera will give you decent results unless you have special needs or precise requirements. It's not like in the Mini-DV days where we had to lie to ourselves that the camera didn't matter. That if your story was good the mushy wouldn't hold you back. Well, it still looked ugly.

Today we can pick up a GH2 for a couple hundred bucks and make a great movie image-wise. If you can't is not because of the camera.

It's all about what you like or what you can afford.

I'm a film fan. I won't say every movie should be shot on film. I think there is place for both and I know this won't be for long. But to me film is the benchmark. There are stories and projects that can benefit from the digital look. But to me this is not the standard I shoot for. It's the exception. It's all about what you want.

About 14-16 months ago I was offered a full F65 kit for 18,000 Euros. It was for camera/recorder, C30WR, SR-PC4 and I believe a couple of the slower cards too. It looked in great condition. I was enthusiastic. It was a bargain. At the time there were a few F65 kits floating around and not really selling. If I remember well it was when the Amira hit and I guess rental houses were trying to get rid of their F65s.

I was very close to buying this F65. But I moved away from it. Work caught on and I ended up not making a decision. A few weeks later the person contacts me again that it was still for sale and giving me a feeling I could probably even take a grand off or something if I really wanted to buy it. I got caught up in the new camera excitement again. I came really close. But then I slapped myself back to logical land and started thinking clearly. Which of my cameras was this going to replace? The F35 most likely. But I don't have to sell my F35s. I can keep them and the F65. (I really wanted to justify the F65). But will I choose the F65 over the F35 most of the time to justify buying the F65? And I just couldn't bring myself to say yes. It would be only for situations where 4K would be a must, which I have so far not encountered. The F35 is my "art" camera. For those projects where you're allowed to be artistic instead of the ones you have to be about the nuts and bolts. The 4K requests always come from those lower end jobs where clients are moved by hearsay or hype. They tend to be the boring projects. You know the kind. For those I already have a 4K lower end camera. Besides that it's normally up to me. It's only important how it looks. Not how it gets gets there. I'm normally able to influence the camera or format decision and most times it's not even talked about.

So I would be buying the F65 because of the 4K nameplate on the side. I like the F35 because it looks closer to 35mm film where the F65 is unquestionably digital. Pristine, fantastic, super sharp and superb. But I'm a film fan and if you can't shoot film for all projects you want to shoot film, and who can and for how much longer, the F35 is a great option.

So even though the price was a bargain and barely more than I paid for one of my F35 kits, I passed on the F65. Now looking at the market I see I could have got it and probably made some money as they seem to have appreciated in price a bit. But I didn't think that way.

This says nothing against the F65 though. It's a superb camera. I just didn't have a real logic reason. Artistically I would still use the F35 more often. Commercially the only thing that makes sense at that level of camera is an ARRI. This is what camera decisions should come to in my opinion. Business logic and personal taste.

But the F65 is arguably the best 4K out there. I made a list with around 16 things I would like the camera which would eventually replace my F35s to have. Although no current camera checks all the boxes the F65 comes the closest. It is a very special camera. They both are.

So talking about which camera is best is really like discussing taste in women. I know with cameras we have specs as supposed guidelines but I couldn't care less for anything else besides what I see on screen.
 
JMtheDP said:
This. I'd often hear DoPs in the same breath saying digital wasn't as high res as film, but then saying "oh it's too sharp". Probably because they once used a 2/3" camera with the detail cranked up.

I personally think digital cameras beat film for DR as it is - certainly Kodak never claimed more than 14 stops for Vision3 as far as I know. And my experience has generally been film is probably equal to digital in the highlights, but far worse in the shadows.
Click to expand...

Mitch Gross said:
There is a difference between high resolving power and sharpness. Film has high resolving power without overt sharpness, which is not the case in digital. This is why increased filtration is often desired in digital. Much of this is due to the random changing nature of film imaging structure compared to the rigid grid of an imaging sensor, and some is due to the physical layered depth of a piece of film emulsion compared to the singular surface of silicate on an electronic sensor. They are inherently different.
Click to expand...

I think Mitch hits it square in the jaw. It's not the resolution. It's the "hardness". I believe this is what most DPs have a problem with when they say it's too sharp. But I think it's not a matter of just softening it up with a filter. This in my opinion will just make it softer. We need smoother, not necessarily softer. Film is not really softer. It's smoother. Mitch's reasoning as to why makes a lot of sense. But one can't get the Cooke look by adding diffusion to a Master Prime. What you get is a softer Master Prime look. Cookes are smooth. I think the same applies to film vs digital. Filters will only soft it up. It's also about how the sensor renders contrast, light and several other factors. There are cameras that are "harder" than others. The Alexa and F35 are definitely not as hard as the F65 or REDs. It's not only a matter of 4K or not. The RED One doesn't resolve near 4K and it is still "harder" than the Alexa or F35. Once ARRI releases their 4K Alexa I'm sure it will still be smooth even though it will resolve 4K. If you want smooth a filter won't really do the job in my opinion. You will just get softer.

As to digital having caught up with film in DR, in numbers it definitely did. But in practical terms, in rendition, how many digital cameras render highlights as well as film does? Even those which supposedly have the same number of stops above as film? It's not the numbers it's the end result and there I think film is still unsurpassed. The number of stops only tells half the story. The way film reacts to light vs digital also needs to be factored in in my opinion.
 
SJX said:
Weird browns? Where?
Click to expand...

The F35 does indeed skew towards earthly tones. Most likely what Meesepiece defines as browns. This is a matter of taste but to get a truly neutral image it needs a bit tweaking. The same is true with the Alexa which skews towards green. But many like that in a similar way that many like the F35 earthly tones.
 
MeesePiece said:
And every hollywood DP who shot on the f35 has moved on. Every single one.

These are guys who have the power to shoot on any camera they want. These are the guys that can shoot on film even though no producer would ever want to, especially on a giant feature, where reshoots cost thousands of dollars.

Why has their leaders of cinematography moved on from the f35? Is it because they didn't know about using it with just an odyssey 7q?
Do you think that would change their mind?
Click to expand...


Many of the points have already been mentioned. But the reason for the industry moving on from the F35 has little to do with plain quality and more to do with perception, marketing and Sony being Sony. The very same thing happened to the F65 and in a much worse way. You could say the F35 was more successful than the F65. Lots of TV series and films shot on it. It's still to be seen if the F65 will accumulate such a curriculum till the end of it's rental life.

One huge contributing factor was the "new camera" factor. If ARRI releases an Alexa II 4K tomorrow the current Alexa would be dead on the water in the rental business soon after that. Everybody wants to use the latest. It matters not if the old is still good. It's just how it is.

Another factor was RED. Not necessarily because the RED One was better. It wasn't. But it was new, it brought the notion of higher than HD to the market and it was cheap. Suddenly HD was no longer good enough and people started wanting 4K, even though till this day, in 2016, the huge majority of shows are still finished in HD. It didn't matter. HD was yesterday's news whether we were technically ready for 4K or not. Then the price. Why would you pay $200K for a camera where every part was specially designed for it when you could pay $17K for a camera where the parts...well I won't assume anything here. The RED price didn't affect the F35 as much as it did the F65 and F55, which were developed under this new "corner cutting" philosophy caused by the pressure generated by RED's prices. But still, perceptually it still played a role. The damage was done. HD was now passe and Sony rushed the F65 out of the oven.

Then there is also the Alexa. ARRI is a traditional film and cinema company. Sony was traditional broadcast and they "only" had HD. Perception is everything in sales and marketing. On top of that the Alexa also brought some good new stuff to the table. Although it still didn't surpass the F35 in everything, the same way the F65 didn't, the camera had a much better workflow, had the support of a company that never really disappoints their customers and the camera made a lovely image. It was a sure hit and deservedly so. But it doesn't make the F35 bad.

The workflow was also one of the nails in the coffin. The SRW-1 is a monster. Tape was on the way out. Panavision saw the light and released their SSR1 solid state recorder for the Genesis as early as they could. Sony never really replaced the archaic tape deck. There were aftermarket alternatives but too late. If you research, most F35 movies were shot using the tape based SRW-1. I only know of four big productions that used the codex. I'm sure there are more but not nearly as many as with the SRW-1.

Then Sony just gave up on the F35 in typical Sony fashion. The same way they have pretty much given up on the F65. The 12-bit output upgrade came when it almost didn't matter anymore. The SR-R3 solid state recorder for the F35 never made it to market. The firmware upgrade that would allow the F35 to shoot 2K DCI and finally bail it out of the "HD jail" was never released. Not that it makes any practical difference. But it would free the F35 from being "only" a HD camera in the eyes of all the hype-driven people.

I could go on. But I think the point is made. It's easy to dismiss it as the F35 was just no longer good enough. But it's way more complex than that. Just like the reason the F65 has absolutely no market penetration and ARRI dominates is also complex. So it's surprising that you would use this argument against the F35 to defend the F65 when both are basically on the same boat.
 
Thank you for entering the ring, Aaveum.
abreu-canedo speaks with an incredible amount of logic and patience.
We all have our opinions, and they are not facts.

But there is empiracal data beyond just facts that establish a strength and weakness of a camera, just as there is for lenses.

For lenses, I don't think anyone would argue that Cookes are creamier and warmer but less sharp that Ultra Primes and that ultra primes are more neutral-color.
Who would argue that?

And with that said, would anyone argue that 35mm film scans come in with the resolving power closer to something like the Alexa, Red, or F65?
I guess people on this board would, and I was one of them.

I bought the f35 because of this board. I loved MacGregor's work on it.

But after having it and using it on a lot of commercial work and feature and narrative I finally started to see the flaws in it. That it doesn't have the resolving power to capture the natural sharpness of a landscape, definitely nothing like shooting on 35mm kodak 5219 film.

That it struggles with the blue channel.
That despite its CCD RGB sensor, it struggles.

That it's not the greatest camera or closest to "film" camera that we have.
That I have been drinking the kool-aid.

That the red camera is really not bad. That the Alexa is better. And now that the f65 is better. All my opinions, sorry if they are stated as facts, but I am very passionate about it all.
That mechanical shutter. The higher sensitivity allows me to be more subtle with lighting.


The F35 looks like last generation of Hollywood filmmaking.

Real Steel looks nice, but it still has those earth skintones and close ups that do not impress me. I don't like how it renders the subtlety of someones face.

Perceived resolution to me is smoothness.
It's not it's own thing.
There is nothing magical about 35mm film, besides the randomness of it.

It's basically scanned digitally as soon as it is processed, and then it's just some digital bits.

I love so many movies shot on film, but this is because I love the DP and his or her team. There are so many movies shot on film that look horrible, like Fruitvale Station.

I saw that at the theatre and thought it was just horrible looking. The exposured highlights, the underexposed bedroom scenes. Just really crappy looking stuff.
Then I saw Ida, and that movie was so beautiful. "This had to be film" - but no, it was the Alexa.

Same with San Andreas - this had to be film. Nope Alexa. And the Age of Adeline - this had to be film - nope - the red dragon. And Chiraq - this had to be film - nope red dragon.

And Spotlight (great film) looked horrible - shot on alexa.

And room - pretty crappy looking -shot on red dragon.

The thing is SJX - there aren't many good looking movies shot on the f65 because no one shot with it. And there are a ton of movies shot on the f35 that look horrible.

Let's go through the list:

Harry Brown - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVOSfHFNlcI - just ugly close ups - ugly tungsten scenes - weird motion cadence looks like video
jumping the broom - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90GKozn-Xg - just disgusting motion - video, lack of resolving power
resident evil - afterlife - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dc5iiT0f1s - horrible blown out highlights - ugly motion cadence
red tails - horrible skin tones - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpA6TC0T_Lw
 
Here's a list made to SJX of F35 movies that look absolutely horrible:

Harry Brown - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVOSfHFNlcI - just ugly close ups - ugly tungsten scenes - weird motion cadence looks like video
jumping the broom - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90GKozn-Xg - just disgusting motion - video, lack of resolving power
resident evil - afterlife - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dc5iiT0f1s - horrible blown out highlights - ugly motion cadence
red tails - horrible skin tones - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpA6TC0T_Lw
a woman, a gun, and a noddle shop - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMGBQDpfLnc - weird lighting, horrible motion cadence
friends with benefits - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJS-wWqVAyk - super ugly blown highlights during a diner scene
here comes the boom - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4L6ruTF5qE - horrible highlight blow out - weird skintones
under the hawthorn tree - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uU8YpuAYfxc - weird motion and how it handles overexposure is ugly


pretty much every trailer I have seen besides Once upon a time in Anatolia and Real Steal is overall pretty crappy.
Is it how the f35 handles overexposure? Perceived resolution?

Hmmmmm. I just don't know.
But the kool aid is gone.
 
Last edited:
Mitch Gross said:
The F35 can also show increased noise in the blue channel in low exposures when compared to the Alexa. This comparison (the F35 was referred to as "Camera X") swayed a number of people to the Alexa from the start.
Click to expand...

So ARRI set this comparison up? I'm sure they were very hush-hush about their "green channel". :-)
 
Green is nothing to be ashamed of. There is a lot of green in all skintones. I don't think Arri is hiding anything about their color science that could be considered embarassing.
 
this is from "Friends with Benefits" - shot on f35 - a $35 million dollar film.

friendsbenefits.jpg

Look at that sky replacement. Look at the detail on the mountains. Holy crud. That is not like film. Or do you think this sky looks great, SJX?

Just cause a camera once cost 250k doesn't mean anything.
 
MeesePiece said:
this is from "Friends with Benefits" - shot on f35 - a $35 million dollar film.

View attachment 110413

Look at that sky replacement. Look at the detail on the mountains. Holy crud. That is not like film. Or do you think this sky looks great, SJX?

Just cause a camera once cost 250k doesn't mean anything.
Click to expand...

That's clearly a bad greenscreen reshoot comp. I don't think I could make the F35 look that bad outdoors if I tried.
 
No, that looks like they went into the blown out highlights and pushed them to blue-ish cyan.
This is a 35 million dollar film . There is no way they could shoot a background plate that poorly.

The F35 is camera that is best left back in 2008.
CCD is good, but at what cost? For highlight overexposure handling that performs that poorly on a mid-budget Hollywood film?
If I saw that shot in the dailies or the trailer and I was a top 500 DP, I would spit my milk out.

The DP would later go onto shooting on the Alexa for the show, the leftovers.
His previous film was shot on 35mm and before that, the Genesis - Easy A

Bye bye.
 
MeesePiece said:
No, that looks like they went into the blown out highlights and pushed them to blue-ish cyan.
This is a 35 million dollar film . There is no way they could shoot a background plate that poorly.
.
Click to expand...

I rewatched the trailer and there a couple clear comps in that sequence, this definitely being one. You'll notice in the preceding shot they are standing on a cliff edge, likely making the reverse tricky. I'd wager this might even be a rushed trailer shot and not even in the final film.
 
If my F55 could look like either of them, I'd be a pretty happy dude :beer:

(Watching Real Steel right now, 10 minutes in and it looks really great.. )

EDIT: had to turn this movie off. Story-wise it's so bad I can't take watching it. But look-wise, I think it looks absolutely beautiful. The F35 definitely shines here.
 
Last edited:
Why am I taking the time to point out that the rip of this trailer for JUMPING THE BROOM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D90GKozn-Xg was botched so badly? Come on Meese- can you really not tell the 'disgusting motion' was a transcode error from some bizarre redundant pulldown or framerate mismatch? If you can't tell it doesn't give much credence to your technical understanding of how well the F35 creates moving pictures, which is, of course, capture motion better than any CMOS chip I've ever used.

Also who cares what the budget is? Garbage in garbage out. Why study and pick apart hollywood schlock to inform your own decisions? The F35 is simply a tool. People who get paid well can use it incorrectly, too. This type of discussion always retreats into the most inane and counter productive aspects of the craft.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top