F65: Why the F65 is better than the F35

MeesePiece said:
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.


View attachment 110330View attachment 110331
Click to expand...


You can now work with slog on the F35 in ACES, BTW.
 
I noticed the same thing with slog and the reds on my F3. It's really noticeable in ACES. With my F3 it bleeds red like crazy in both Nuke and Resolve with ACES using the F35 IDT or sgamut1/slog1 settings...
 
Last edited:
Again I'm not technical -
but what is the advantage of a native sensor being beautiful if the only way to capture it to a recorder is compromised? I know you can go from slog1/sgamut to ACES - but you are merely moving around something already at a disadvantage.

With the f65 and raw-compressed, you can start out with a ACES look, through and through. Yes it's a CMOS and bayered-pattern sensor, but again, I still would rather take the f65's recording ability and the extra dynamic range in the shadows, and the lower noise floor.
 
Ok proof is in pudding right?

Is very hard to give example of video look with stills. It need movement. Stills you can only give example of crappy image. But some examples.

F65:

10576_4_large.jpg

11118_8_large.jpg

12129_8_large.jpg

11118_3_large.jpg

10576_15_large.jpg

10576_5_large.jpg

This whole movie look so video:
9979_8_large.jpg

Now F35:

5463_2_large.jpg

6307_5_large.jpg

5146_7_large.jpg


5146_2_large.jpg

6238_7_large.jpg

6238_1_large.jpg


6238_2_large.jpg


6307_1_large.jpg




5463_5_large.jpg



5146_29_large.jpg


I like it when looks like film. Not like video. I like good skins.
 
F65 can look bad.

F35 can look bad.

Alexa can look bad.

65mm film can look bad.

Unfortunately, because Sony cameras are not very widely used people don't really get an appreciation of the range of abilities they have. I've seen more than my fair share of awful stuff shot on ALEXA, or film for that matter.
 
SJX,
you are comparing not just cameras, but lenses, filtration, focal lengths, composition.

Having boring test charts and a controlled setting is actually more useful.

There has been a lot of pretty stuff shot on the f35 and a lot of ugly stuff on it as well.
Just as James says.

DPs, colorists, editors, gaffers, lenses, filtration, angles, composition, and most importantly, the director.
These are who affect the look.

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?
 
Meese

The Genesis is still being used a few places. In reality I think people "moved on" from the F35 because the Alexa came out and was a genuinely better and cheaper alternative to the F35 for most people. You have to remember at the time all the rental houses had the F35+SRW1 setup, and wanted like $3000 a day for them.

If rental houses don't have demand, they'll get rid of the kit, and if they've got rid of the kit, it won't be rented. Suprisingly few cinematographers are actually that technical, or test multiple cameras.
 
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. It was also no small thing that at the time the F35 recorded to expensive HDCAM-SR tapes, with an equally expensive and time-consuming workflow. The Alexa recorded in ProRes to reusable SxS cards. Of course now the F35 can record to the Odyssey7Q+... :-D
 
Also some of us will remember the time when the HDCAM SR factory went under water, and HDCAM SR tape suddenly became rocking horse shite. That did NOT help tape-based workflows, at all.
 
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...

If your judging a camera based on market adoption, the F65 won't be faring too well either. And the F35 was pretty much a flop from the getgo.
 
SJX said:
Ok abreu-canedo so let's do it.




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.



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



I think F65 owners also are good people and pros.




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.





And F35 not?


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

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


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


Everybody say noise in F35 is very 35mm film.


Ok I understand. This is different.





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

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.
Click to expand...


-F35 having better color out of the camera does not mean it has better color in general. F65 shoots at 16bit RAW, which is more color than 12bit 444. The CFA is a comment to speak on the fact that Sony handled the CMOS implementation on the F65 really well. But it is not what makes it better than F35. The 16bit RAW output of the F65 has four times as many shades of RGBA than F35, in a much larger color space. This is not an opinion.
-Motion of mechanical shutter, blocking light in a circular fashion for a period of time, in my opinion, feels better than the read out of the F35 chip...which is still nice. But I don't see anyone saying that F35 motion cadence is better than F65 mechanical shutter. Sure, the F35 has better motion cadence than most CMOS sensors, but this does not apply to the F65 nor the Alexa models with spinning disc mechanical shutter. I personally prefer the spinning disc method in this regard.
-Resolution is not about making things sharper, but instead, smoother. In the digital world, if you want to render a circle, the more polygons/squares you can use to render the curve, the smoother the curve will be. It renders the circle more naturally. It's not about sharpness.
-Dynamic range has everything to do with the way we see the world, as you know. I won't even get into this.

All this, in my opinion, makes the F65 a better camera for me. However, if you say that everything you see from the F35 is better and therefore it is a better camera to you, than that is your opinion. And it will never be wrong because there is no such thing when it comes to opinions. There is no argument there. Plus, nobody forgot why the F35 is a great camera. Everyone knows this. The F35 does not need you to come to its rescue. It is doing just fine. On the same token, if Meesepieces thinks the F65 is better than the F35, that too is his opinion. His opinion is not wrong either.

My but look at me. Sitting here, defending a camera I own. I must look ridiculous.

That said, you should go out and use both cameras. Get some experience with them. Do some projects. I'm personally speaking from experience with both cameras. Lots of other folks here are too. And who knows. Maybe after using you will figure out that indeed you do prefer the F35. And you will be better off for it. :)
 
aceslinear.jpgacesslog3.jpgslog3.jpgslog1.jpg

aces linear gamma/aces slog3 gamma/ slog3, sgamut3.cine/ slog1

to be able to get ACES straight out of resolve and into rec 709 is pretty damn nice
 
abreu-canedo said:
Plus, nobody forgot why the F35 is a great camera. Everyone knows this. The F35 does not need you to come to its rescue.
Click to expand...

But F65 need Meesepieces to come to rescue and and you and it's also fine right? But not me.


abreu-canedo said:
My but look at me. Sitting here, defending a camera I own. I must look ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes you look ridiculous like me that you criticize before for bickering.

The rest of your post I won't reply because you repeating yourself. For motion search forum and see so many people saying they prefer F35 motion over any other camera. I think this is number 2 favorite feature in F35 after the color.

I already said proof is in pudding. 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? Examples are out for all to see. I rest case with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top