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

[Mitch Gross]

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.

The F65 was not designed as a mainstream camera. It was designed as a high level production camera. That is it's own form of "specialty camera." It is physically large. It requires an expensive docking deck. One cannot view its material except in a proxy form, even on set. The workflow for post is hugely onerous, although that has now gotten easier as tools intended for the F55 have also helped eased the use of the F65. But complicated post workflow relegates a camera system to very few production venues, such as certain types of feature films, vfx, certain types of commercials, and closed-loop production facilities making specialty product (ride films, etc.). That is not the definition of mainstream. Such a client base works for a specialized camera like a Phantom, but that is very different from the F65.

While at my former job I was the in-house product specialist for the Alexa and then for the F65. I know how the cameras were designed and marketed. I know what it took to use them and how they were actually used by cinematographers and productions. There is a world of difference between them.

In its first year on the market, one could not shoot ARRIRAW on the Alexa. It was not available and the first production in ARRIRAW was "Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close," which started rolling some 9 months after the camera first shipped. For the first three years I would say that 95% of work done on the Alexa was all recorded in ProRes on the internal SxS cards. Compare this to the F65, which offers no workflow other than RAW, and at its introduction that workflow was complicated and very slow. Because of that, no one and I mean no one wanted to use the camera. It took several years for the rest of the support system to catch up to the camera body, but by then there were already other choices on the market. By then the damage was done, and that's tough when your a rental house investing in a +$100K camera system. It's a huge pile of cash sitting on the shelf gathering dust.

People knock RED in various ways, some of it deservedly and some not so much. But the real secret of its success in production is that the company offered workflow from the beginning to make the device manageable. ARRI offered their "Shoot -> Edit" workflow on the Alexa, and any production could appreciate the idea of pulling a card out of a camera, sticking it in a computer and immediately editing. Taken for granted now but it was something not available on other high end camera systems. The F65 could not produce viewable dailies for hours. It required a guy riding a fat computer and doing so for hours to crunch the footage. You can say that this has "nothing to do with the camera" but I would say that this is viewing the world with blinders on. A camera is not just an image capture device. It is part of a complete workflow system. If I wanted to shoot on something that captured a beautiful image but I would have to wait a day to be able to see it, I would rather just keep shooting on film.

If there was no RED and no Alexa on the market, then F65 could have had greater penetration. But that was not the case at the time of its introduction.

 

[JMtheDP]

Compare this to the F65, which offers no workflow other than RAW, and at its introduction that workflow was complicated and very slow.

The F65 DOES offer workflows other than RAW, although I agree they should have offered a ProRes or XAVC option with it. Also I do not see how the F65's workflow was any different from the RED - I recall the F65 being much better supported early on than the RED was.

Today - and this is all I care about - I regularly do 4K RAW shooting with the F65 on very low budget productions. It is neither difficult nor complicated. It it is that much of an issue to deal with RAW, just convert it all to ProRes 4K in Resolve.

At least with the F65, one can use the same media for both 1080P video and RAW shooting - rather than having to buy all your media again, as with the F55.

 

[Aaveum]

Mitch, since the F65 is a cinema camera, by mainstream I meant Hollywood, Blockbuster, as in not indie. Mainstream as something you would see in your local multiplex. I didn't mean mainstream as in popular. A small 2/3" from a non traditional cinema company such as the SI2K has very little chance at that. While I believe this is right up the F65's alley.

As for your other points, I agree with many of them. I have said in other threads that the closed Sony eco-system and some of the decisions Sony made with the F65 is what has kept the camera from achieving stronger market penetration.

When I said "nothing to do with the camera", what I meant was that the fact the F65 is not as popular as something like the Alexa has nothing to do with the camera itself. As in it doesn't mean the F65 is less popular because it is a bad camera or worse than the Alexa.

As for the usability of the camera, I agree it counts, specially at that level. This is something I have always "preached". It doesn't matter if it makes the best image in the world if it's just a sensor in a box and incredibly hard to use. But I don't agree the F65 is all that much worse to use than the Alexa these days. I think the pros and cons of both have to considered on a by project basis. I definitely don't see the Alexa as a no-brainer, even if I like it's out of the box image better. But I will leave this for JMtheDP to dissect if he so wishes since he has way more experience with the F65.

Edit: And I see JM beat my post and is already at it.

 

[Zsigmond James]

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.

You clearly haven't seen Winter Sleep and The Dark Horse...... Both won numerous awards... were shot practically, and looked phenomenal.

 

[Aaveum]

You are correct. I have seen neither and both are on my watch list.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Please understand that I was referring to the functionality of the F65 when it was introduced. At that time it only offered RAW and there was only a single Sony workflow available to support it. And that workflow, in a word, sucked.

The landscape is different today, but you only get one chance at a first impression. Most of the rental houses that initially purchased the F65 were happy to get rid of them because they didn't go out. Now there are a few places who have a bunch and they keep them working all the time.

 

[JMtheDP]

Mitch

The odd thing is, I recall the original RED being an utter pig on all fronts, didn't stop them being massively popular.

I agree Sony made huge mistakes with the camera. Not the first time, won't be the last. Half of the issues would have just been solved with better marketing .which is the real kicker.

Still, doesn't bother me as I wouldn't have been able to afford it if they had been crazy popular a year ago.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Yes, but look at the price point of the Red One v. that of the F65. Or at least the illusion of a price point on the R1: $17.5K that was really about $38K to get it up and running.

People will put up with a lot if they think they're saving money. And the user base of the R1 and the F65 is VERY different.

 

[Viddovation]

Wasn't the original RED $17,500 (base unit) and being pitted against Panavision $3,000 a day rentals and $250k+ cameras like the F23? I get a little foggy on the timelines, but I thought price to performance was the key for RED's entry in the market. At $85k the F65 was priced higher than RED and Alexa solutions that were readily available. When you're paying a fraction as much in rental or purchase you can afford more headache in post.

EDIT: Mitch beat me to it.

 

[DLD]

Ya but Red One was 2007 and F65 was 2011 (and really began to ship in 2012). You'd think most of the early digital workflow problems would have been solved by then.

 

[Surf it Mike]

Current Red DSMC Epic was around in 2011. Practically the same workflow as today. So not sure about the "utter pig" issues.

From memory the big thing with the F65 was it's closed workflow ( before Davinci Resolve ) & data footprint , at the time. Given current HD capacity & transfer speeds this should no longer be an issue.

Its still a big fat camera but it's image is regarded by some as better than Alexa , Red . So the big question is where can you pick one up at a good used price .

 

[Viddovation]

Ya but Red One was 2007 and F65 was 2011 (and really began to ship in 2012). You'd think most of the early digital workflow problems would have been solved by then.

The point is that when the Red One entered the market it's hassles were deemed acceptable because it's price point was low. The F65's entry in 2011/2012 not only had workflow hassles, but had a price tag at or above the cost of well accepted cameras like the Alexa that had established and well honed workflows. New gear often has growing pains, so it's not surprising the F65 did - but they weren't acceptable to the end users because acceptable alternatives were available.

 

[Grug]

What seems strange to me, given the F65 features a separate recorder to the camera body, is that the recorder hasn't been updated to offer a more streamlined workflow like that used by the F5(5). Build a new recorder that includes 12-bit ProRes4444 recording, XAVC, SR444, and Sony Raw (all the goodies that Sony are already doing), and allow it all to be interfaced with simply with software like Catalyst Browse and Davinci Resolve.

Could give the camera new life.

 

[Mitch Gross]

If you make a big and expensive camera and don't sell very many, you're not likely to spend a lot of resources on updating it. You move on to the next project.

 

[DLD]

Sony basically missed the F65 product cycle. Assuming they'll learn from their failures, an F65 replacement should be on its way soon. With every flavor of 444. And custom LUT's. And some super-duper Raw recorders.

 

[poormanwally]

While at my former job I was the in-house product specialist for the Alexa and then for the F65. I know how the cameras were designed and marketed. I know what it took to use them and how they were actually used by cinematographers and productions.

Are you not at Abelcine anymore? I've watched lots of your, Andy's, and Ian's Youtube how-to videos, great info you guys offered. What was the F65 inventory like at Abelcine, was it always on special order? I don't imagine Sony went all-in and manufactured F65s like crazy, so I'm wondering what inventory looks like in general. With computing power and storage getting faster, cheaper, smaller, if they still have new inventory burning a hole in their books, it would be pretty great for indie companies if they have a firesale; seeing as used package deals go somewhere mid $20k USD, if the new inventory dropped price, it'd be interesting to see how used prices drop... if at all, since I'm not sure I'd choose new over used if the price drop was only a few grand anyway. Just a seeing shapes in the cloud, but it would be my dream camera. And can you explain how Sony gets the 6gbps data rate on the S55 cards? Red's mini mags are 2.4gbps, so I think Sony's are the fastest cards I've seen, but $10k for the 1TB S55 card is just awful. I'm wondering if they did something special that merits that price, or if it's just markup tacked onto their flagship back when they thought they could sell units at $100k+.

 

[Grug]

If you make a big and expensive camera and don't sell very many, you're not likely to spend a lot of resources on updating it. You move on to the next project.

Certainly, just seems odd when you think of how successful things like Alexa's XT upgrade has been - provide a better recording workflow and it seems people will plonk their money down.

I'm sure the camera's simply too far into it's lifespan for them to consider doing anything with it, especially with how outsold it is by it's baby Cinealta brothers. But I'd have thought that simply implementing their existing recording hardware and software into a more appealing recorder module, wouldn't come at an outrageous cost, and might allow them to recoup some of their development costs for the camera.

 

[Aaveum]

If you make a big and expensive camera and don't sell very many, you're not likely to spend a lot of resources on updating it. You move on to the next project.

In my opinion, this is exactly Sony's problem and why ARRI is dominating. ARRI clearly has a plan. Sony seems to be just throwing things at a wall to see if anything sticks and if it doesn't they don't behave like they have the ability to make it stick. They will just give up and move on.


The Alexa has arguably been the “same” camera since it was released 6 years ago. ARRI just keeps making it better. I know they can do that because the Alexa sold well in the first place. But this is because ARRI is a company with a plan and an understanding of the market.


Sony will most likely just release a replacement for the F65 instead of trying to correct their mistakes. That is typical Sony. But honestly, where can you realistically go from the F65? I'm not talking about headline grabbing specs like 8K or 16K regardless of monitors or other equipment having been released or announced for that. Most mainstream movies are still not finished in 4K. I'm talking about a camera for today.


So where do you go from the F65? Sure they could make it smaller and even use the same sensor. Or they could come in with a brand new sensor in 65mm and limit it to a niche market. But a better option would be instead of spending the money in the R&D, they could just spend much less and improve what they already have. I know it will probably never never happen. But to me it makes more sense at this point.


Because the F65 is still the top of the line. It is still technically above all cameras. It's a bit like having a car with 1000BHP when the second nearest model has 700BHP and releasing a car with 1300BHP, just to compete with yourself. It's obvious that lack of BHP is not the reason the F65 didn't sell well. So making another with more BHP in hopes to sell more doesn't seem any sensible. And if they are not going to massively improve on the specifications, which at this point seems daunting, they might as well stick with the F65. If they would bring to market a (miraculous) CCD based camera producing real full RGB, with 15-stops of dynamic range, capable of real 8K and all in a F55 sized body for the price of a F55, then yes. But we know it's not happening and it would take something like that to be a real improvement over the F65.


Grug's idea of a new recorder is great. I agree the F65 is too deep in the ditch for a simple firmware update to save it. But a new and better supported recorder, even if a SR-R4R, with not only the raw and SR it offers now but also with ProRes and XAVC as Grug suggested could indeed make a difference. It would effectively turn it into another camera. Add some of the features lacking on the body to the recorder and it would immensely improve the whole camera. It may not do a thing if the F65 had been surpassed in specifications. But it still hasn't.


Another thing which this unseen from Sony move could do is inspire more confidence in the Sony brand. People are fine investing such high sums in the Alexa because they know ARRI won't just have a knee jerk reaction and drop it at the first hiccup or market adversity they find. Based on Sony's track record, if the Alexa was a Sony camera they would have released a whole new camera instead of just the highly successful 4K upscalling update. And they would have left all prior Alexa owners out in the cold without hesitation.


They did the same thing with the F35. They had big plans to update it, which would definitely have extended the camera's shelf life. Maybe even allowed them an extra year or two to think the F65 through and not make the mistakes they have made. But a knee jerk reaction to the RED One and Alexa made them just drop the F35 like a basket of angry bees and prematurely release the F65. Leaving all the people who paid 200K+ for the F35 out to pasture. And we know how well that worked for them.


It would be great to see a wind of change coming from Sony for a..uh..change. Maybe they should hire some of the Panavision team who worked with them in the Genesis/F35 project. Because it's obvious all their money, infrastructure and technical know-how is not helping them any when a “small” boutique company like ARRI is moping the floor with them.

 

[DLD]

Rumors for an update have the F65 specs in the F55 body (and the well accepted F55 workflow). My opinion is that they will go with the RGB rather than the Q67 sensor, however. Q67 was top of the line in 2011 and, by the time the new F-series arrives, it will be 2016.

As to F65 replacement, a medium format sensor is a no-brainer. Sony makes the one for Pentax 645D, which is actually bigger than than the 65mm film but slightly smaller than the "true" medium format of Hasselblad and Phase One. Alexa65 is the 54 x 25.6 mm. 645D is 44 x 33, which means its dimensions have to be tweaked slightly but it seems quite doable.

 

[GordanWillis]

I think they figure out mixed color and how it handles highlights - to make a camera for people who still think shooting film is the best - including me.
I don't think people who like the look of film over digital are in the minority still. The randomness of film.

Or maybe I am crazy.

Until then, I don't care about resolution more than 1080p - it's so down the list for me. If something has good motion, good color, pretty highlight handling then I am good.

I don't understand if there truly are people who think digital has defeated film.

I have seen some Alexa films and red films I thought were film, so who knows.

Also I think mechinical shutter is interesting, but again I don't know anymore especially now that most theatres are digital projection.

Where do we all go as an industry?