F65: Why the F65 is better than the F35

[JMtheDP]

Harry I'm not sure 3:1 REDCODE, or F65RAW for that matter (3.6:1 compression) would be improved by being uncompressed? The data penalty of ARRIRAW is already hideous, and would be unthinkable at 6K+

That being said, I have been examining a fair bit of RED footage of late, both epic and R1 - recorded at 8:1 and RC42 respectively... lot of compression issues.

 

[SJX]

I think somebody is new toy struck. :cheesy:

PROs for F65
- more inherient resolution - I'm using a tiffen digital diffusion 1/4 and 1/2 filter with it and softening slightly in resolve. But still the extra resolution means that faces pop out more - no artifacts at all in borders and inherient resolution that is there.
- more dynamic range - more information in shadows, and holds the skies nicely. the info in the shadows helps if you underexpose.
- built in NDs.
- 120 FPS
- raw recording - get away from slog, sgamut, etc
- 800 asa
- noise on it I think is more filmic
- mechanical shutter gives motion an organic feeling

With all this F65 still don't look better than F35. Sorry. All F65 movies look like video. Only Oblivion is good.

So I've been shooting a feature with it.

Good. Post frames and lets see if it look as good as Mac's short LA 91. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[MeesePiece]

okay
shot with cinealta lenses with digital diffusion 1/4. should have used a higher level.
mac's film looks amazing. this is a different look. the camera is clean in my eyes up to 1600 ASA. The Nevada shot was lit with one astra 1x1 light.

 

[abreu-canedo]

All that was missing from this thread's title is "...in my opinion". In fact, I think these words are missing from a lot of the opinions that get communicated, perhaps unwittingly, as facts.

I think it is actually pretty cool to start a thread comparing cameras and stating opinions and siting experiences and even examples. In fact, great stills above! I am really digging the grade, too! Would love to see the finished product at some point!!!

But when it turns into an argument and people are getting checked, then it ceases to become productive. What are we gonna get by trying to convince the other person that their opinion is wrong? These are both great cameras! This thread contains some great info. But what if we could get to it without bickering about who is right and which camera is better?

 

[JMtheDP]

When I got my F65, as I said at the time my reasons for changing over the F35 were mostly ergonomic ones. In my opinion the F65's picture is better than the F35, but it isn't twice as good, or four times as good. In fact both the F35 and F65 are fit enough for theatrical exhibition in most regular theatres. Only in IMAX type venues would you really need the F65's additional resolution, and still so few films are finished in 4K anyway.

 

[SJX]

okay
shot with cinealta lenses with digital diffusion 1/4. should have used a higher level.
mac's film looks amazing. this is a different look. the camera is clean in my eyes up to 1600 ASA. The Nevada shot was lit with one astra 1x1 light.

View attachment 110313View attachment 110314View attachment 110315View attachment 110316View attachment 110317View attachment 110318View attachment 110319View attachment 110320

Oh man now I regret requesting frames because I have to judge and don't like judging forum people work.
But I must say is nothing special. Some look like DSLR frames imo. Doesn't help you post no faces. This is where F35 absolutely kill F65. Only shot with person still have the boring skin tone. But is this grain from F65 or you add fake grain? Because first you complain of F35 grain but this grain look worse. My favorite shot is 7th shot.

 

[SJX]

All that was missing from this thread's title is "...in my opinion". In fact, I think these words are missing from a lot of the opinions that get communicated, perhaps unwittingly, as facts.

I think it is actually pretty cool to start a thread comparing cameras and stating opinions and siting experiences and even examples. In fact, great stills above! I am really digging the grade, too! Would love to see the finished product at some point!!!

But when it turns into an argument and people are getting checked, then it ceases to become productive. What are we gonna get by trying to convince the other person that their opinion is wrong? These are both great cameras! This thread contains some great info. But what if we could get to it without bickering about who is right and which camera is better?

Yes missing in my opinion in title. But why you trying to talk sense and spoil all fun abreu-canedo? rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

This is camera forum and we discuss this things. :tongue:


But most opinions go to F35 anyway. It's clear. All frames and videos from F35 get so many compliments and not only from F35 owners. Whole forum. F35 gets much more compliments and wows.

 

[MeesePiece]

Everything is just an opinion. Dps at the top level are making judgement calls based on their opinons too.
My opinion is based on overall natural resolving resolution and dynamic range and baseline sensitivity of the camera. And of course, having Sgamut3.cine, so people can grade your footage better and take out those greens. Plus not having some weird warm brown look that is trademark of the f35 unless you shoot with an even more compromised color space.

Beyond that it's just my opinion, so yes I apologize, I should have stated that.

The quality of skintones is more affected by my grade, as I am creating a stylized look for the film.
I would post some studio tests I did of the f35 vs f65 that started me on this journey, but why? Does it matter? Would anyone on here see past what they already believe to be true in their emotional landscape?

 

[JMtheDP]

Everything is just an opinion. Dps at the top level are making judgement calls based on their opinons too.
My opinion is based on overall natural resolving resolution and dynamic range and baseline sensativity of the camera.
Beyond that it's just my opinion, so yes I apologize, I should have stated that.

The quality of skintones is more affected by my grade, as I am creating a stylized look for the film.
I would post some studio tests I did of the f35 vs f65 that started me on this journey, but why? Does it matter? Would anyone on here see past what they already believe to be true in their emotional landscape?

You won't change SJX's mind

 

[abreu-canedo]

Yes missing in my opinion in title. But why you trying to talk sense and spoil all fun abreu-canedo? rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

This is camera forum and we discuss this things. :tongue:


But most opinions go to F35 anyway. It's clear. All frames and videos from F35 get so many compliments and not only from F35 owners. Whole forum. F35 gets much more compliments and wows.

Not sure if you completely understood me or not. I am pro discussion and it's good to discuss. I just think that there are types of discussions that are more productive than others.

Sure, you should discuss why you like the F35 better than the F65. And if you notice more people like the F35 on the forum, that is cool too...even though there are some issues with that claim that could be factored in. There are more people in this forum with F35s and more examples to be posted. Also, the RGB striped sensor of the F35 renders such good color!! All F35 examples are for the most part great. Specially since such good people are working with it.

In any case, everyone is free to do what they want here. Just after a while it feels like bickering. Not in all instances, as I mentioned earlier, there are some good points. Just saying some ways of discussing are more productive than others. Although perhaps, as you say, less fun.

I learned on the F900 and F35 back in my undergrad days in art school. I absolutely love it. But I personally prefer the F65 because in my opinion it has worlds of color, lovely motion with mechanic shutter, great workflow for me (I prefer expensive and fast media) with the SRPC unit to make LUTed dailies and proxies simultaneously during wrangling, and on the shoulder it is very well balanced...despite being heavy. Also, in my opinion, it manages to be quiet enough in small sets to not be an issue on set. Only in very small spaces have I had to clean background hum from camera in the audio in post. Also, the CFA and sensor combination on the F65 really delivers great fidelity that you can soften up as you wish, or keep depending on the look you are going for. The F65 is not by any means a noise free camera. But the noise it renders is very fine. If you have noise in your shadows, and in post you apply noise reduction only to the chroma channel in the lows and not to the luminance, you end up with very nice grain!! Lastly, the slightly wider dynamic range of the F65 can save a bit of money on lights and NDs on rushed or low budget sets. It may mean the difference between having to put ND film on a window and limiting your blocking, or just going in and getting the shot. So there you have it. My opinion. This is not to say that I think the F65 is "better" than the F35. Just different horses for different courses. Different productions, subjects, stories and budgets have different needs. There are some productions for which the F35 and the F65 both are not going to be "the best" camera. But those are the reasons why I picked up the F65, as opposed to the F35.

I would say the F65 has a CMOS sensor, which doesn't give as good colors out of the box as an F35. But the 16bit color RAW that comes out of the F65, in my humble opinion, can be graded to be equally, if not more subtle, complex and organic than the F35. Plus the ACES workflow really facilitates this.

Films like oblivion, Tomorrowland and Lucy are good examples of this. I saw all three in theaters...despite not loving the story of Lucy. There is so much that factors in with getting an image and I will be the first to admit that I am still learning the ropes an F65 workflow. I hope to have some F65 examples to show in the next year or two. I am in pre-pro for a scripted narrative I will probably use the F65 for. I have recently shot a commercial for a company who will use the footage at trade events in 40' projection screens and they wanted a very high resolution and sharp look that went with the concept of the shoot. The extra resolution of the F65 made it a no brainer for this job. We could have rented an F35, but in this case, the F65 was the better camera. I'm just saying, all this which is better talk is relative and too many factors to really determine in any factual way. Heck, in some ways I prefer the sensor of the F23 than the F35...even though it is a smaller sensor.

 

[SJX]

Everything is just an opinion. Dps at the top level are making judgement calls based on their opinons too.
My opinion is based on overall natural resolving resolution and dynamic range and baseline sensitivity of the camera. And of course, having Sgamut3.cine, so people can grade your footage better and take out those greens. Plus not having some weird warm brown look that is trademark of the f35 unless you shoot with an even more compromised color space.

Beyond that it's just my opinion, so yes I apologize, I should have stated that.

No. Everyhing is just your opinion. Sorry. Weird browns? Where? You mean the warm colors? This is like film! Like the king film! If you mean IR contamination you should use filter. More compromised color? F35 has RGB sensor and F65 doesn't and F35 color is compromised color? Man you have agenda much?

Fine! If you like video look stay with F65. More resolution is not better or alexa would not kill F65 in the market.

 

[SJX]

And MeesePiece why you avoided grain question? Because you trying to find things to pick on F35 and contradict yourself? rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

But is this grain from F65 or you add fake grain? Because first you complain of F35 grain but this grain look worse. My favorite shot is 7th shot.

 

[DLD]

... few films are finished in 4K anyway.

FWIW, first UHD capable Blu-Ray players began to ship within the last couple of weeks. The UHD discs themselves (aka movies, if we can use that term these days) will ship beginning March, 1. Early adapters, I guess, will just have to set their new Blu-Ray machines on top of a media rack and enjoy their oh-so-pretty appearance until then (OK, they can play their old discs that will be upscaled). But this mini-glitch aside, I assume that every movie from now on, including everything scanned from film, will have a 4K render.

 

[SJX]

Not sure if you completely understood me or not. I am pro discussion and it's good to discuss. I just think that there are types of discussions that are more productive than others.

Ok abreu-canedo so let's do it.

Sure, you should discuss why you like the F35 better than the F65. And if you notice more people like the F35 on the forum, that is cool too...even though there are some issues with that claim that could be factored in. There are more people in this forum with F35s and more examples to be posted.

Yes. But not only F35 owners make compliment to F35. And maybe we don't see more F65 example because they shy to compete with F35 examples? Is not only 1 F65 owner here anymore.

Also, the RGB striped sensor of the F35 renders such good color!! All F35 examples are for the most part great.

Exact. So is better color and this is no opinion. Is fact.

Specially since such good people are working with it.

I think F65 owners also are good people and pros.

In any case, everyone is free to do what they want here. Just after a while it feels like bickering.

I know. But if somebody say F35 is compromised color and F65 is better when F35 is RGB sensor and F65 is cmos, do you see the problem? Do you see the agenda? So I must bicker.

I learned on the F900 and F35 back in my undergrad days in art school. I absolutely love it. But I personally prefer the F65 because in my opinion it has worlds of color,

And F35 not?

lovely motion with mechanic shutter,

F35 motion is nicer by most people. Motion is strong part of F35.

great workflow for me (I prefer expensive and fast media) with the SRPC unit to make LUTed dailies and proxies simultaneously during wrangling,

You can have same with F35 if you use Codex or SRR1, no?

Also, the CFA and sensor combination on the F65 really delivers great fidelity that you can soften up as you wish, or keep depending on the look you are going fore.

But F35 RGB sensor is better color. CFA don't change this.

The F65 is not by any means a noise free camera. But the noise it renders is very fine.

Everybody say noise in F35 is very 35mm film.

If you have noise in your shadows, and in post you apply noise reduction only to the chroma channel in the lows and not to the luminance, you end up with very nice grain!! Lastly, the slightly wider dynamic range of the F65 can save a bit of money on lights and NDs on rushed or low budget sets. It may mean the difference between having to put ND film on a window and limiting your blocking, or just going in and getting the shot. So there you have it. My opinion. This is not to say that I think the F65 is "better" than the F35. Just different horses for different courses. Different productions, subjects, stories and budgets have different needs.

Ok I understand. This is different.

There are some productions for which the F35 and the F65 both are not going to be "the best" camera. But those are the reasons why I picked up the F65, as opposed to the F35.

Yes but some of this reasons F35 also have and some F35 is better like color. So maybe you picked F65 because of 4K or dynamic range. Bu your example of grain, color and motion make no much sense for me as F35 is equal or better.

I would say the F65 has a CMOS sensor, which doesn't give as good colors out of the box as an F35. But the 16bit color RAW that comes out of the F65, in my humble opinion, can be graded to be equally, if not more subtle, complex and organic than the F35. Plus the ACES workflow really facilitates this.

I think this is your opinion like you said. RGB vs cmos. F35 better color and is fact.

Films like oblivion, Tomorrowland and Lucy are good examples of this.

Oblivion yes. Lucy is a big video dope look. Tomorrowland look like a video game. From all F65 only Oblivion look great. But better than F55 with nothing.

abreu-canedo you are a nice and smart guy. You make good points. I don't want to bicker with you. Is not bickering. Only my opinion vs you opinion and I wanted to point some things many don't know or forget of F35.

 

[SJX]

You won't change SJX's mind

Big old James. One of my favorite old timers here. Smart man. Talent man.

 

[steve phillipps]

Fine! Stay with your video look image. More resolution is not better or alexa would not kill F65 in the market.

Can we check out any of your work anywhere SJX? Just curious. I'd check IMDB but no use unless people use their real names.
Steve

 

[SJX]

Can we check out any of your work anywhere SJX? Just curious. I'd check IMDB but no use unless people use their real names.
Steve

IMDB me? I'm only a small guy. I'm not even close to talents of Macgregor, Ed david, James and this guys. I wish.

But I didn't mean to talk about MeesePiece images. I was talking F65 images. It was not personal and I think this is clear if I talk about more resolution is not better. But you tried make it personal. I said I don't like judging forum members work. I have corrected my post. It was about the camera not about MeesePiece.

If I shoot something I'm proud I will show. But I'm not the guy who post video of cats or business interview looking for art compliment.

 

[Harry Lime]

Harry I'm not sure 3:1 REDCODE, or F65RAW for that matter (3.6:1 compression) would be improved by being uncompressed? The data penalty of ARRIRAW is already hideous, and would be unthinkable at 6K+

That being said, I have been examining a fair bit of RED footage of late, both epic and R1 - recorded at 8:1 and RC42 respectively... lot of compression issues.

Depending on how critical your eye is 3:1 is pretty much visually lossless. 5:1 not so much. But when you dig into the data with a keyer or color corrector it is noticeable that a good amount of data has been discarded.

I think we also need to differentiate between lossless compression, which stores the captured data more efficiently, and something like Redcode or Cineform, which is always lossy i.e. wavelet compressed.

 

[Harry Lime]

Resolution issues are nothing new for ageing actors. Once again people keep referring to film for skin tones and look. Filmies like seeing "smudged/fudged " skin tones ......essentially a legacy look.

I don't think I would refer to natural looking skin as a 'legacy look.' One reason why skin looks natural and pleasing on film and the Alexa is because how both of these handle saturation relative to luminance and how the result mimics what you see with your eyes. In the real world people do not have highlights that are glowing with saturation, which is the look that most digital cameras produce.

But once again a modern audience doesn't care or know the difference.......sigh.

So, you are going to have the bar for the quality of the work you produce set by the lowest common denominator?
"If the masses buy it, it's good enough for me!" Really? Sigh...

21st century hi resolution cinema /TV has its own unique skin tone rendition/ looks which modern audiences appreciate and accept.

Please show me the research that proves that modern audiences appreciate and accept unnatural looking skin or an image that shows an unnatural amount of resolution.

It's a cliche, but the public is not as stupid as many believe it to be. Your average civilian may not be able to explain why something doesn't look right, but they do pick up on it and usually it's phrased as 'it looks like TV or a soap opera'.

This look is more naturalistic and truthful and IMO more realistic and if done right looks amazing ie last shot of "Revenant" blood vessels , skin splotches, skin imperfections and all ....magnificent. ( & yes it can also do glamourised hi end images ) We would never have seen that without digital.

Arri spend a lot of time engineering the OLPF etc on the Arri65 in an attempt to balance exactly how much detail and what MTF frequencies are captured by the 6k sensor. Their goal was to produce an image that is sharp, but not jarring or unnatural. And having seen the Revenant three times I'm convinced that they succeeded.

http://www.newsshooter.com/2015/08/...s-talks-about-resolution-hdr-and-the-arri-65/

If you have ever seen closeups on projected 70mm film you will see the same level of detail as you did in the Arri65 footage.

Deakins said "film , its over " we all need to get over it .....understand the medium we work with in the 21st century and maximise its potential and stop referring to medium thats disappearing before our eyes. PS. With greater resolution comes greater responsibility , using these new tools to maximise & create stunning stories & images , it's not the other way around , more resolution = less responsibility.

It's not about film vs digital. It's about the conflict between what is needed, what some people who are enamored with technology think we need and companies looking for new gimmicks to sell more gadgets.

 

[MeesePiece]

here's slog1 vs slog3 from the f65.
by the way, the shirt my test subject is wearing is solid blue.

To further clarify my statement on slog1 looking brown - it's because it oversaturates the reds and desaturates the blues. More than slog3.

I'd pick slog3 over slog1 any day of the week. And the F65 lets you work in ACES. that alone makes it a better camera for color than the f35.
With the f35 you are trapped to slog. You can use the custom gamuts, but this traps you even more.