Looking nice Grug! Even with those highlights going that hot it's still an inviting image.
F65: Why the F65 is better than the F35
- Thread starter MeesePiece
- Start date
Looking nice Grug! Even with those highlights going that hot it's still an inviting image.
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
I started this thread not with the intention to point out the flaws of films shot on the f35, but to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the f35 and f65.
Then i posted stills from a feature i shot on the f65 and some people were saying it looked like stuff shot on a dslr. Cue my transformation.
But sjx then said repeatedly why they werent any good movies shot on the f65 when there are a ton shot on the f35. He mentioned films like ex machina he didnt like the look of. Or tomorrowland. Which is fair. But im here to show you that the majority of films shot on the f35 looked horrible and digital as well.
I went down to his level. I experimented with this "anonymonity" - but now I feel bad. Being a troll is difficult on the troll. Time and time again.
I feel bad for you, SJX.
But it felt good the freedom to point out the flaws in the f35. With that said, the work some of the people on this board have done with the f35 is inspiring. Especially Kassim and MacGregor.
Grug your images are beautiful. So are macs. But his work on the red one mx is gorgeous too. Give him amy camera and he will maximize it. He did that despite the flaws of the f35.
With that said, at $6k, it gives you an image that is pretty much such a great image that can really be only had by this unique camera.
I think only the red one mx can give you as nice of an image in that price range.
Anyway I apologize to everyone.
Then i posted stills from a feature i shot on the f65 and some people were saying it looked like stuff shot on a dslr. Cue my transformation.
But sjx then said repeatedly why they werent any good movies shot on the f65 when there are a ton shot on the f35. He mentioned films like ex machina he didnt like the look of. Or tomorrowland. Which is fair. But im here to show you that the majority of films shot on the f35 looked horrible and digital as well.
I went down to his level. I experimented with this "anonymonity" - but now I feel bad. Being a troll is difficult on the troll. Time and time again.
I feel bad for you, SJX.
But it felt good the freedom to point out the flaws in the f35. With that said, the work some of the people on this board have done with the f35 is inspiring. Especially Kassim and MacGregor.
Grug your images are beautiful. So are macs. But his work on the red one mx is gorgeous too. Give him amy camera and he will maximize it. He did that despite the flaws of the f35.
With that said, at $6k, it gives you an image that is pretty much such a great image that can really be only had by this unique camera.
I think only the red one mx can give you as nice of an image in that price range.
Anyway I apologize to everyone.
Last edited:
Edrafennas
Active member
Браво!
May I ask what is it you are unhappy with that has prompted you to sell the F55? Is it the looks alone?
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
I just saw Dope. Not only is it a beautifully, well-crafted film that deals with giant issues in a real, small-way, it's also a beautiful looking film.
That was shot on the Alexa XT and classic plus to sxs cards with panavision lenses. I thought it looked as beautiful as anything shot on film, and so much prettier and more beautiful tha the Dp's last film, shot on 35mm kodak film.
This is where we are digitally. This is where I think 99% of working DPs are about digital - something with a lot of inherient resolution like the alexa, red weapon or f65, with anamorphic glass to smooth out the digital look.
Just as a lot of 35mm films also use this glass to smooth out their look. With a great colorist and director and editor, this is where we are in 2015.
If one would assume the sony f35 is better looking than these cameras, I would argue that this is a losing argument. This is a deecision a DP has to make.
The camera, the lenses, the filtration, the lighting, the gels, the camera movement.
And just as fussy we are with lenses, we are fussy with cameras.
I really like the f35 camera. I enjoyed it a lot. But it's not the end-all, be-alll camera. The forgetten gem that outperforms where everything has gone these days.
I'm sorry to break everyone's heart. Once I realized this, I am now a better DP for it. It's just a camera.
And as the Alexa is a tool, I can give you links to commercials I have shot with it that look horrible. Horrible because I screwed up on the lighting, the grade was bad, and I didn't understand color and gels. I thought that shooting with this camera alone would give me beautiful imagery, but it didn't. Because it's just a camera. It's not magic.
The alexa stuff people shoot that is beautiful, like Dope, is the result of thousands of hours of hard work, learning and practice. The great DPs have that when they get to this camera and bring this with the camera.
Could they do as good with the f35? Well again I showed the work of several top DPs with the f35 and while in the day, everyone's standards were fine with it, they do not hold up now.
We now expect the tool, the camera, to get you to the look of film. In this era, the era of 4k and 1080p streaming netflix and 4k digital projections.
So while it is just a tool, the camera, it is good to have the best tool you can have for your project, just as you want the best lens package.
If not, you will struggle with your tools, and you may not get to where you want to be.
I wasn't getting there. I tried as hard as I could with the f35, but I would in the end be disappointed with certain resolution issues and highlight handling and skintone and lack of color diversity in the skintones.
That was shot on the Alexa XT and classic plus to sxs cards with panavision lenses. I thought it looked as beautiful as anything shot on film, and so much prettier and more beautiful tha the Dp's last film, shot on 35mm kodak film.
This is where we are digitally. This is where I think 99% of working DPs are about digital - something with a lot of inherient resolution like the alexa, red weapon or f65, with anamorphic glass to smooth out the digital look.
Just as a lot of 35mm films also use this glass to smooth out their look. With a great colorist and director and editor, this is where we are in 2015.
If one would assume the sony f35 is better looking than these cameras, I would argue that this is a losing argument. This is a deecision a DP has to make.
The camera, the lenses, the filtration, the lighting, the gels, the camera movement.
And just as fussy we are with lenses, we are fussy with cameras.
I really like the f35 camera. I enjoyed it a lot. But it's not the end-all, be-alll camera. The forgetten gem that outperforms where everything has gone these days.
I'm sorry to break everyone's heart. Once I realized this, I am now a better DP for it. It's just a camera.
And as the Alexa is a tool, I can give you links to commercials I have shot with it that look horrible. Horrible because I screwed up on the lighting, the grade was bad, and I didn't understand color and gels. I thought that shooting with this camera alone would give me beautiful imagery, but it didn't. Because it's just a camera. It's not magic.
The alexa stuff people shoot that is beautiful, like Dope, is the result of thousands of hours of hard work, learning and practice. The great DPs have that when they get to this camera and bring this with the camera.
Could they do as good with the f35? Well again I showed the work of several top DPs with the f35 and while in the day, everyone's standards were fine with it, they do not hold up now.
We now expect the tool, the camera, to get you to the look of film. In this era, the era of 4k and 1080p streaming netflix and 4k digital projections.
So while it is just a tool, the camera, it is good to have the best tool you can have for your project, just as you want the best lens package.
If not, you will struggle with your tools, and you may not get to where you want to be.
I wasn't getting there. I tried as hard as I could with the f35, but I would in the end be disappointed with certain resolution issues and highlight handling and skintone and lack of color diversity in the skintones.
Last edited:
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
Here's some stills from the F65 shoot I did and putting together as a short film.
Shot raw compressed.
then went into filmconvert, alexa profile, and tweaked from there.
I'm back to using filmconvert as a starting point.
Rewatching stuff I shot on the f35 - the motion is nicer still and it has really beautiful reds. But the f65 still has more of a colorspace to work in, and has more inherent resolution so everything feels smooth. I shot with digital diffusion 1/4 and actually in these stills took down on midtone detail for a creamier look.
Again I'm not bashing the f35 - I own one still. It's a damn fine camera.
I really at this point would love for people to stop bashing the f65.
It's a very incredible camera.
Shot raw compressed.
then went into filmconvert, alexa profile, and tweaked from there.
I'm back to using filmconvert as a starting point.
Rewatching stuff I shot on the f35 - the motion is nicer still and it has really beautiful reds. But the f65 still has more of a colorspace to work in, and has more inherent resolution so everything feels smooth. I shot with digital diffusion 1/4 and actually in these stills took down on midtone detail for a creamier look.
Again I'm not bashing the f35 - I own one still. It's a damn fine camera.
I really at this point would love for people to stop bashing the f65.
It's a very incredible camera.
Attachments
Last edited:
abreu-canedo
Well-known member
Lovely stills, meesepiece!
I like the stylized grade and love the textures. Are you using the Sonys V.2 PL lenses? Also, great job at keeping those slight shades on the lights while still maintaining shadow details. You using the high-low key button, or are you making viewing LUTs to monitor your full dynamic range?
I like the stylized grade and love the textures. Are you using the Sonys V.2 PL lenses? Also, great job at keeping those slight shades on the lights while still maintaining shadow details. You using the high-low key button, or are you making viewing LUTs to monitor your full dynamic range?
macgregor
Veteran
I have a problem wth this thread. The title is wrong. The F65 is not better than the F35, it's just different and/or more advanced.
The other day I received this question on my LA91 vimeo page:
This was intense. Breathtaking is the right word.
Great results for what I think had limited budget.
Can anybody say why the Sony F35 looks so different from the F5, F55 and F65? I think it looks better, more natural. More organic as they say. The others look less natural and more digital. I have watched many F35 clips and I'm becoming a fan. I'm on the market for a camera upgrade and I was thinking of a F5 or even stretching for a F55. But after seeing what the F35 can do I'm giving serious thought to buying one instead.
I know this short looks great because of all the work and skills from the crew. I'm talking in general based on several F35 clips I've seen. What is the secret compared to the newer cameras?
And this was my answer, which I think applies here:
Well, the F35 is a very different Sony camera, actually one of a kind, specially regarding color science. It was a $250K beast when it came out and its target was to match 35mm film stock. Panavision and Sony spent a fortune building the Genesis and subsequently the F35. And the goal was to make it look filmic. These days, digital cameras have other priorities. And while the F65 and F55 look surprisingly clean, with vivid colors and high ISOs, they look completely different. That's why the Sony F35 look is apreciated. Sure there are more modern cameras, cheaper, smaller... but the F35 has that unique look that make it different.
So yeah, if by better we mean cleaner ISO, more dynamic range, and more resolution, by all means the F65 is better than the F35. But cinematographers also take into consideration other aspects that are not easily measurable (otherwise film would be completely dead by now since it's grainy, low res and messy) and for example in aesthetics is where in my opinion the F35 shines.
The other day I received this question on my LA91 vimeo page:
This was intense. Breathtaking is the right word.
Great results for what I think had limited budget.
Can anybody say why the Sony F35 looks so different from the F5, F55 and F65? I think it looks better, more natural. More organic as they say. The others look less natural and more digital. I have watched many F35 clips and I'm becoming a fan. I'm on the market for a camera upgrade and I was thinking of a F5 or even stretching for a F55. But after seeing what the F35 can do I'm giving serious thought to buying one instead.
I know this short looks great because of all the work and skills from the crew. I'm talking in general based on several F35 clips I've seen. What is the secret compared to the newer cameras?
And this was my answer, which I think applies here:
Well, the F35 is a very different Sony camera, actually one of a kind, specially regarding color science. It was a $250K beast when it came out and its target was to match 35mm film stock. Panavision and Sony spent a fortune building the Genesis and subsequently the F35. And the goal was to make it look filmic. These days, digital cameras have other priorities. And while the F65 and F55 look surprisingly clean, with vivid colors and high ISOs, they look completely different. That's why the Sony F35 look is apreciated. Sure there are more modern cameras, cheaper, smaller... but the F35 has that unique look that make it different.
So yeah, if by better we mean cleaner ISO, more dynamic range, and more resolution, by all means the F65 is better than the F35. But cinematographers also take into consideration other aspects that are not easily measurable (otherwise film would be completely dead by now since it's grainy, low res and messy) and for example in aesthetics is where in my opinion the F35 shines.
Last edited:
JMtheDP
Veteran
I genuinely believe most F35 shooters would be happy with an F65. It shows many of the same qualities, unfortunately even at blu-ray quality these can be lost. I saw some footage projected at 1080P recently and it looked totally grainless, but I know the source material is anything but.
I used to add grain to some of my F35 projects, and sometimes shot with +12db in the middle of the day to get more of it, if the project suited it.
I used to add grain to some of my F35 projects, and sometimes shot with +12db in the middle of the day to get more of it, if the project suited it.
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
But can't a person argue that the Sony F35 is better than the F3? You argued that before, Mac.
Modern kodak 35mm film scanned at 2k has no digital artifacts. No Anti-Aliasing. It doesn't have any marks at all of digital. It is smooth.
The F35 is not smooth. It has Anti-Aliasing, it has moire, it doesn't handle blown-out highlights well.
All cameras can be compared. And some are better than others. Yes, it's opinions, it's all opinions.
The F65 has weaknesses as well. All do.
I like the F35. But after having it for a while, I am being realistic with it, understanding what I don't like about it. And I think sgamut1 and slog1 is to blame. There is less variety in skintones with it. Also that it only gives you 5600k or 3200k - you can custom white balance, but it's still not as precise as the F65's white balance.
I guess all I'm trying to really explore underneath it all, is how much other people's opinions influence all of us. We don't even do our own tests, a lot of this talk and thoughts online is just based on a certain few people's viewpoints.
Modern kodak 35mm film scanned at 2k has no digital artifacts. No Anti-Aliasing. It doesn't have any marks at all of digital. It is smooth.
The F35 is not smooth. It has Anti-Aliasing, it has moire, it doesn't handle blown-out highlights well.
All cameras can be compared. And some are better than others. Yes, it's opinions, it's all opinions.
The F65 has weaknesses as well. All do.
I like the F35. But after having it for a while, I am being realistic with it, understanding what I don't like about it. And I think sgamut1 and slog1 is to blame. There is less variety in skintones with it. Also that it only gives you 5600k or 3200k - you can custom white balance, but it's still not as precise as the F65's white balance.
I guess all I'm trying to really explore underneath it all, is how much other people's opinions influence all of us. We don't even do our own tests, a lot of this talk and thoughts online is just based on a certain few people's viewpoints.
Last edited:
I believe this short: https://vimeo.com/50643185 is a good indication of the camera's native picture, before heavy grading is applied that tries to fight against all that dynamic range and resolution.
What I see a very clean sharp Sony picture. Like an A7 camera. The F35 dosn't look like an A7 camera out of the box. Some people love how those A7 cameras look, and that's cool.
F35 highlights seem pretty solid to me:
I agree Dope looked great.
What I see a very clean sharp Sony picture. Like an A7 camera. The F35 dosn't look like an A7 camera out of the box. Some people love how those A7 cameras look, and that's cool.
F35 highlights seem pretty solid to me:
I agree Dope looked great.
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
That film, while shot by the great Zsigmond,looks really, really bad. I completely agree with you. Horrible sharpness, weird sky colors - just weird Sony colors. Like horrible.
My thesis is that barely anyone has shot with the F65, so that is why so many things look horrible, because the ratio is low. It's not enough of a scientific sample.
When the Alexa first came out, many films shot on it looked terrible.
I remember seeing Amour in the theatre, shot by Darius Khondji, and thinking how horrible it looked.
And that movie with Tommy Lee Jones - Hope Springs, shot on the alexa - one of the uglist Hollywood films I have ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s22_Mvikl8
Imagine if this is how you saw the Alexa ? This was your only example of it. So rec 709. So digital. So ugly. Imagine if you were a DP and then you said, "nope, not shooting on that."
But Dps didn't - they saw past it.
Not this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXhCaVqB0x0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strEm9amZuo
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laCKBx6dmW8
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXhCaVqB0x0
Again, whether or not you like how I graded the stills from my short (a few posts back) - it's a much different tonality and style than the Zhidgmond film.
Again and again, you and others, and me, just judge a camera based on a film we see.
We need to trust cameras based on our own tests.
That's why every single DP before a major film does tests. They test multiple cameras, lenses, and filtration.
Then they and the director and producer make a decision.
Just as Macgregor lead to a rediscovery of the F35 after most people left it for dead. He dared people to try a camera that was thrown-away.
Go ahead, hate on the F65.
Fine. I'll just keep shooting away on it and the Alexa.
Have fun here!
My thesis is that barely anyone has shot with the F65, so that is why so many things look horrible, because the ratio is low. It's not enough of a scientific sample.
When the Alexa first came out, many films shot on it looked terrible.
I remember seeing Amour in the theatre, shot by Darius Khondji, and thinking how horrible it looked.
And that movie with Tommy Lee Jones - Hope Springs, shot on the alexa - one of the uglist Hollywood films I have ever seen.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s22_Mvikl8
Imagine if this is how you saw the Alexa ? This was your only example of it. So rec 709. So digital. So ugly. Imagine if you were a DP and then you said, "nope, not shooting on that."
But Dps didn't - they saw past it.
Not this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXhCaVqB0x0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=strEm9amZuo
or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laCKBx6dmW8
or this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXhCaVqB0x0
Again, whether or not you like how I graded the stills from my short (a few posts back) - it's a much different tonality and style than the Zhidgmond film.
Again and again, you and others, and me, just judge a camera based on a film we see.
We need to trust cameras based on our own tests.
That's why every single DP before a major film does tests. They test multiple cameras, lenses, and filtration.
Then they and the director and producer make a decision.
Just as Macgregor lead to a rediscovery of the F35 after most people left it for dead. He dared people to try a camera that was thrown-away.
Go ahead, hate on the F65.
Fine. I'll just keep shooting away on it and the Alexa.
Have fun here!
Last edited:
macgregor
Veteran
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
What feels misinformed?
MeesePiece
Carbonite Member
Here's some stills from a commercial I just shot with the F65. Since people were calling for me to show my work.
MeesePiece, how are you grading your slog/sgamut footage from the F35? I find it strange that what you are seeing as weaknesses with the F35 most everyone else see's as strengths. Highlight rolloff and blown highlights, I think you are the first person I have ever heard claim that the F35 performed poorly with them. Aliasing and moire, never seen either in my footage and the F35 is one of the only cameras that I know of that samples at the Nyquist limit for red, green and blue.
MeesePiece you said: "The F35 is not smooth. It has Anti-Aliasing, it has moire, it doesn't handle blown-out highlights well."
I think anyone who has gotten to use a F35 knows this is the exact opposite of the F35. The F35 has weakness but it is smooth as f'ing butter. You are describing another camera. Did you use an A7S thinking it was an F35? It is very hard to take anything you say seriously when you make statements like : F35 has moire. Moire is a by product of bayer pattern which the F35 does not use.
Any of us who have seen proper F35 footage know your statement about the F35 is complete BS and makes everything you say laughable. I highly doubt you own a F35 and if you do, you have done something very very very wrong to come to this conclusion.
I think anyone who has gotten to use a F35 knows this is the exact opposite of the F35. The F35 has weakness but it is smooth as f'ing butter. You are describing another camera. Did you use an A7S thinking it was an F35? It is very hard to take anything you say seriously when you make statements like : F35 has moire. Moire is a by product of bayer pattern which the F35 does not use.
Any of us who have seen proper F35 footage know your statement about the F35 is complete BS and makes everything you say laughable. I highly doubt you own a F35 and if you do, you have done something very very very wrong to come to this conclusion.
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
Unfortunately the reality of this discussion boils down to which camera are you most likely to see on set today, unfortunately irrespective of perceived image quality it isn't the F35.
Last edited: