F65: Woody Allen and Vittorio Storaro go for the F65 on Woody's first digital film

starcentral

starcentral

Veteran
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/woody-allen-first-digital-shoot-830238

(I tweeted the author of the article and corrected her that the F65 is in fact an 8K camera).

unknown.png
 
I might tweet her back and tell her and tell her she was right first time round ;)

Interestingly when I was at ARRI the other day they mentioned that a lot of "the old guys" liked the F65. Don't get much better than Mr Storaro...
 
Yeah I drank the koolaid a while ago ;)

I think Claudio Miranda had a lot to do with getting DP's to look further at the F65.

I hope to get one cheap one day, but the storage would kill me. Maybe a F35 with deck is all I've ever wanted.
 
The orange SR memory cards will record up to SR-Lite @ 25fps, they are reasonably priced. SxS is not cheap it's just the SR cards come in bigger sizes.
 
Miranda's features were so VFX laden. You know, Allen's films - eh, digital bits - will, at least, be about people.

And Storaro.

 
Oblivion was a lot more practical and set-orientated than you would think. Still a VFX fest for sure, but his work is spectacular in it.
 
Very interesting news.

It seems the F65 is way more popular in Europe and Asia than it is in the U.S.

I have heard before that Besson may have something to do with it in Europe. Miranda certainly has his share of credit globally as well.

I have the impression that the F65 may be experiencing a slow late come of age. Having Storaro shooting on it will definitely bring several eyes to the F65 and can only be good for it. The fact he pushed for it over all the other options is another very strong endorsement.

For all of you wanting to get a F65 and waiting for harsh price drops, maybe you should act now. I'm totally going out on a limb here. But if the movie or Storaro was to get an Oscar nomination it could spark a new found love for the unfairly much neglected F65. Prices would adjust to that. Being Allen and Storaro and more importantly, together, talks of Oscars are not out of place at all.

And Sony, if you have anything in the wings to replace the F65 maybe it's a smart idea to wait till this film comes out. Maybe people will get the memo. Definitely should be featured in the next CineAlta magazine. Actually in multiple editions till the film comes out. Sony should milk the heck out of this in the same way ARRI did with Deakins.

It's just refreshing in some way not seeing an Alexa chosen for another big film supporter's first voyage into digital.

Will definitely catch this in theaters.
 
Last edited:
DLD said:
Miranda's features were so VFX laden. You know, Allen's films - eh, digital bits - will, at least, be about people.

And Storaro.
Click to expand...


Yes, many of the shot on F65 movies were visual effects driven. But as JMtheDP says Oblivion is pretty live action set centered. Apart from a few matte paintings, some digital enhancements and the obviously artificial characters it is a straight WYSIWYG movie. It is also the best example of F65 material still. It looked very, very good.

Ex-Machina was good but it still had that “look”at times.

Didn't care for Lucy. Could as well have been shot on the F55.

I have not had the chance to see Tomorrowland yet.

In Belle it was quite distracting. I kept telling myself they should have shot it on film while watching the movie. It had too much of a digital or video look for a period piece. I'm still of the opinion that period should be shot on film. Public Enemies shot on the F23 looked awful. The video documentary gimmick didn't work at all for the period movie. I actually didn't like it in Miami Vice either and that is obviously not a period piece. I think it got old by the end of Collateral.

But the rest in the F65 curriculum is either too VFX driven to tell or just quick and dirty stuff like romcoms and the like. And they look quite awful.

So the F65 didn't have too many chances yet. It will be great to see what Storaro can do with it. If anybody can truly make it shine is Vittorio. Really looking forward.
 
A little off topic. But as I see they are using a Panavised version of the F65, have you had the chance to play with one JMtheDP? How does it compare to the stock one? Panavision not always makes things better. Many or most preferred the stock F900 over the Panavised 900F, by miles.
 
Aaveum said:
I have the impression that the F65 may be experiencing a slow late come of age. Having Storaro shooting on it will definitely bring several eyes to the F65 and can only be good for it. The fact he pushed for it over all the other options is another very strong endorsement.

For all of you wanting to get a F65 and waiting for harsh price drops, maybe you should act now. I'm totally going out on a limb here. But if the movie or Storaro was to get an Oscar nomination it could spark a new found love for the unfairly much neglected F65. Prices would adjust to that. Being Allen and Storaro and more importantly, together, talks of Oscars are not out of place at all.
Click to expand...
Several Oscar wins for Slumdog Millionaire didn't do much for the SI-2K.
 
On the other hand, look at what Tangerine is doing for the Iphone ;)

(sarcasm above, as indicated by winky face)
 
Mitch Gross said:
Several Oscar wins for Slumdog Millionaire didn't do much for the SI-2K.
Click to expand...
Very good point, Mitch. You just made me remember how much I followed and wanted the SI-2k when it first appeared. Just had to google them now to see if they were still in business. I don't hear much about them any more.
 
Anyone still convinced a digital camera only has one "look", go and watch the recent Arnie flick, sabotage. Or Mr. Holmes. Both shot ALEXA, both looked awful.

I did not like the look of Lucy at all, but loved Oblivion and The Evil Dead remake. How you work with a camera makes as much difference, if not more, than what camera you use.

The F65 is a superb and very misunderstood tool. Sony do not help themselves at all. I am glad the camera is coming of age. Frankly, I just appreciate choice - I hate there being one option for anything in life.
 
I think Ex Machina was a great looking example of the F65, they kept the subtle grain of the camera which i loved. It's funny that the F65 hit a low about 6 months ago, I bet the value goes up in the coming year.
 
I can tell you there are a couple of rental houses over here really regretting their decision to sell the cameras.
 
More important than the camera is the colorist for me. Of course each camera renders highlight roll off differently and grain and color - mixed color lighting and skintones - but really just as things shot on Kodak 5219 can look horrible (especially since the 90s and the DI) we all forgot how damn crucial this step is. I have seen plenty of films shot on 16 and 35mm that look really bad and part of it is because of the DI process.

If you look at the behind the scenes of Birdman - with the technicolor person - man did he do a lot to the lighting in that film.

I think f65, f35, alexa - you can do great with all of these. And no one will go one way or the other. I think the Alexa wins because it's easy to use and colorists all know it well - the f65 is a daunting camera to many - including me - I don't know if I would shoot with it unless I could tinker with it first/

I am still partial to how the motion feels on the f35 - but it is also not a perfect camera. Sometimes I can't get it to look the way I want it to.

But again and again that colorist is an unsung hero in this all.

But yes, the more great stuff you shoot James, the more people will want you and not care what the camera is and not care for anyone what camera they bring.

I feel like the past two years at least on my gigs, they don't care what camera I pick as long as I can make it look good. I remember two years ago they would specifically ask "can you shoot it on the alexa" or "red" but now it feels like the dust has settled and no one cares.
 
A very long time ago, I bought my first "professional" camera, an F900. It was already getting old by that time, but was still in demand. The RED was out and I knew within a couple of years it would be tough to sell the F900 to clients.

As it turned out, as time went by and more people used the RED (bear in mind this is pre-MX/very early R1MX) there were so many problems people experienced with RED they were actually happy I brought a Sony along.

The F65 is a great camera, bear in mind that of all the reasons I chose to upgrade image quality was way down on my list!
 
Mitch Gross said:
Several Oscar wins for Slumdog Millionaire didn't do much for the SI-2K.
Click to expand...


I see that as a totally different situation. Not even comparable if I may be blunt. The SI2K is a 2/3" POV style camera made by a totally unknown and newcomer company. Very far from a mainstream or standard production camera. I'm certain that Slumdog being shot on it was seen more as a gimmick or special application than anything.

Similarly, if 28 Days Later had gotten an Oscar, it would have never made the XL1 more mainstream.

The F65 is a totally different case. It was designed from the ground up to be a mainstream camera. The reason it isn't has nothing to do with the camera.
 
Certainly there a movies shot on the Alexa, or F35 and film that look bad. But I think this is more a case of butchering it than a case of different looks. You either get it right or you don't. The great thing about the Alexa and F35 is that it's so easy to get it right with them. You really have to go out of your way to butcher the footage when shooting on them or cut some very wide corners. I never worry about post because I know it will only make what is already great in my EVF better.

And this is what I want from a camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top