Jump to content

Tye's Sony Rant


Tyler Purcell

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member

The F55 is a prosumer camera ???? you must be alot richer than you make out :)...

What else would you call a "mid range" camera? I call it prosumer especially due to all of the limitations. (more about that below)

 

Sony RAW the WB is not baked in.. its 16 bit RAW.. more than Arri .. there are billions of tones in there.. there is something else very wrong if you cant get a good image out of F55 RAW.. or even F5 RAW for that matter..

Who said anything about RAW? The camera does not record RAW!!! Why can't you get that through your head. We've talked about this dozens of times. If I walk into a store and buy a camera, that camera records iFrame and LONG GOP MPEG, nothing else! I understand that Sony has an external RAW recorder that hangs onto the back of the body that's nearly $7k. But it's NOT PART OF THE CAMERA!!!! So to say the camera records RAW is deceiving.

 

Also... the Sony RAW recorder, have you actually tried to convert those files? Holy crap man, I did some testing recently and the files are basically incompatible with everything. I thought the SLog iFrame MPEG files from the F5 and F55 were difficult to process, they're easy compared to Sony RAW. Thank god DaVinci does it, but no other program would let them playback, everything needed to transcode before viewing. So how the F are you suppose to watch your files on set? The iFrame proxy files? Give me a break. At least Arri RAW, Cinema DNG and Pro Res files can be viewed in real time on set.

 

Not sure why you would shoot broad day light at 3200..

I wouldn't and I did mention that it was only an example of a situation you can't correct for. So your comment about WB not being baked in, is completely false.

 

But Slog3 is the same as LogC.. its 14 bit..

But it's not. The iFrame MPEG file is 10 bit 4:2:2. Who cares if the camera head is 14 bit 4:4:4, if the file being laid down is lower quality?

 

Again, the $5,999 USD Blackmagic Camera records camera LOG @ 12 bit 4:4:4 in Pro Res XQ or 14 bit 4:4:4 in Cinema DNG raw, which is a folder full of tiff files. Talk about easy decoding... So you can get home and playback the file right away, no decoding, no special software, no transcoding, nothing.

 

So again... $29K + $2600 for the Pro Res board + $7500 for the RAW box = $40k camera. That's breaking RED Helium territory price wise and what do you get for it? Nothing, shitty ass 10 bit iFrame 4:2:2 capture. The lower-end Pro Res codec's and Sony RAW which is basically the most difficult RAW to decode today.

 

its not the gaffer you have to worry about.. but who is dealing with your grading ..

Umm, if it's not lit right, it's not going to come out right. Also... I don't believe in making an image in grading. I make the image on set and the grading is only for fixing mistakes. Grading should not be used for creating your image, that's a HUGE fail and it's probably the biggest disconnect between what you do and what I do. For me, the most critical thing is the show looks good out of camera so that I can edit it right away without doing any serious grading. I make a base LUT for each show, which takes me 10 minutes and I apply that LUT to every shot and that's it, my base grade is done. Thus, the client can see the project quickly and the "base grade" will suffice. After the client has approved the show, I will go in and tweak each shot manually, but generally not much. Cowgirls I spent 3 weeks grading because it was shot C300MKII in Rec709 mode because the DP didn't want to shoot Clog, he wanted a baked in look. Too bad the B camera didn't look anything like the A camera. So had to create entirely different looks for each camera and then power windowed all the highlights to bring them down to match the scenes. It was a tricky grade, but I think it's came out OK, especially for a DVD bound movie.

 

honestly if they cant make the F55 look good.. I would look for someone else ..

Well, the first two shows I shot with the Sony cameras, was DP'd by a pro, but they were all screwed up. Lots of whacked up WB issues that required heavy work in DaVinci. He even told me later, "you've gotta fix these issues in post" and I was like, thanks dude, thanks. So this most recent show I DP'd myself. I've been doing this for a while mate and I know how to light a scene ok? But I light with HMI's because we're always seeing windows and as you know, HMI's are cold. So what I always do is run the cameras at 7k to compensate for that coldness. This makes the image pop and in most cases, the skin tones aren't too disruptive. We used this trick on the FS7 show shot in Rec709, so I figured, why not use the same trick in SLog? FAIL! I didn't want to set the camera to Rec709 because I was scared there wouldn't be enough dynamic range to fix some of the stuff I knew I had to fix. So I shot Slog 5600 for the entire shoot and it was a huge mistake. I was forced into doing it by the camera, I had no choice.

 

Mind you, I did put warm gels on frames and slammed them between the lamp housing and diffusion, but when you're lighting big rooms with 5 - 8 individual HMI units, with outdoor light coming in all over the place, there isn't much you can do. Ohh and again, you may think the show looks fine... but the client didn't feel the same way. To me, that's all that matters, if the clients happy then I'm happy. Otherwise, I did something really wrong and I need to learn from it for the future. What I learned is the Sony cameras are too limiting for my style of lighting, cinematography and post production workflow.

 

changing WB is adding gain.. if your in Slog ... Sony,s idea anyway .. is that changing the WB will have an effect of the max DR..

How is changing WB adding again? No other CMOS camera I've ever shot with, does the stop change when you alter the Kelvin setting. So that's complete utter bullshit, they're just trying to cover their asses for a poor design in my opinion.

 

Im not a grader..

I spend around 8 months of the year in the edit bay editing and grading. So where I wouldn't call myself a grader today, I'm getting there.

 

Sony,s have always been too red if anything.. :)

They have been in the past, they aren't today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

WB change most certainly changes the per-channel gain-- that's how it works when not in RAW, if in RAW it also changes the "gain" in terms of metadata, but that's it. Ideally, raw is just that, nothing applied to the sensor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

WB change most certainly changes the per-channel gain-- that's how it works when not in RAW, if in RAW it also changes the "gain" in terms of metadata, but that's it. Ideally, raw is just that, nothing applied to the sensor.

Right, but the over-all Y channel isn't touched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes but you can still clip your other channels even if you're leaving luma, roughly, untouched-- though i doubt it fully is for "off" white balances; and aside isn't YCbCr after gamma correction anyway from the RGB source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

If you wanted a warm overall color balance and couldn't adjust the camera's WB, couldn't you have just used a warm filter on the lens instead of gelling all the HMIs? That's no more limiting than film is.

 

Not sure what else to tell you, other than that plenty of other people use these cameras and their footage looks fine and sometimes great. It's fine if it doesn't work for you, we all have our preferences. But if you can't make it work, it's not the camera's fault.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Who said anything about RAW? The camera does not record RAW!!! Why can't you get that through your head. We've talked about this dozens of times. If I walk into a store and buy a camera, that camera records iFrame and LONG GOP MPEG, nothing else! I understand that Sony has an external RAW recorder that hangs onto the back of the body that's nearly $7k. But it's NOT PART OF THE CAMERA!!!! So to say the camera records RAW is deceiving.

 

Also... the Sony RAW recorder, have you actually tried to convert those files? Holy crap man, I did some testing recently and the files are basically incompatible with everything. I thought the SLog iFrame MPEG files from the F5 and F55 were difficult to process, they're easy compared to Sony RAW. Thank god DaVinci does it, but no other program would let them playback, everything needed to transcode before viewing. So how the F are you suppose to watch your files on set? The iFrame proxy files? Give me a break. At least Arri RAW, Cinema DNG and Pro Res files can be viewed in real time on set.

 

The F65 has a bolt on recorder, the Reds from the Epic MX Brains through the Dragons and up until the Epic-W all required you to bolt on a recording module. The Alexa required an external raw recorder until the XT update. The Canon C700? External raw module. The Panasonic Varicam? External raw module.

 

The R5/R7 combination with the F5(5) is arguably one of the most seamless of the lot, as once it's on the camera body is simply longer. It's no different from a DSMC module for the Reds really.

 

As for workflow, recording raw to the R5/R7 and LUTted 2k XAVC proxies to the internal SxS is arguably the single easiest raw workflow out there. You simply offload all of your files. The XAVC files go to editorial (with your show LUT applied), are easily edited in pretty much any NLE you care to use. Then you spit out an .aaf/.xmf for Davinci, import the raw files, and grade away.

 

There's no need to transcode proxies on or off set, you can burn your show LUT into the proxies (so that everyone is looking at an approximation of the final look through the entirety of editorial), and the only extra piece of software you need is Sony's Catalyst Browse program (which performs a checksum when you transfer footage, so you know for certain that everything copied across safely. The only thing that would make it better is Prores Proxy proxies (but no camera out there seems to offer this with support for the full range of framerates each camera can do, so it's a no go for that reason).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyler... please read above.. Marks comments..

 

Its an absolutely empirical fact that the F55 can produce very good footage.. Sony proposed it.. and many productions have proven it repeatedly under varying condition,s.. if you cant, then logic can only dictate two possible reason..user error.. somewhere in the work flow..Im not saying its you .. or a mis functioning unit...

 

I rest my case Mi Lud..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The F65 has a bolt on recorder, the Reds from the Epic MX Brains through the Dragons and up until the Epic-W all required you to bolt on a recording module. The Alexa required an external raw recorder until the XT update. The Canon C700? External raw module. The Panasonic Varicam? External raw module.

Sure and? I mean, I only mention those cameras due to the better color space and codec built-in standard.

 

The R5/R7 combination with the F5(5) is arguably one of the most seamless of the lot, as once it's on the camera body is simply longer. It's no different from a DSMC module for the Reds really.

Sure, but it's almost $7k. That's a lot of money to get necessary functionality.

 

As for workflow, recording raw to the R5/R7 and LUTted 2k XAVC proxies to the internal SxS is arguably the single easiest raw workflow out there. You simply offload all of your files. The XAVC files go to editorial (with your show LUT applied), are easily edited in pretty much any NLE you care to use. Then you spit out an .aaf/.xmf for Davinci, import the raw files, and grade away.

Same workflow as the RED, same workflow as the Alexa, same workflow as the Blackmagic cameras. I don't see any difference besides THOSE cameras do Pro Res Proxy files, which are far easier to playback for editing purposes. XAVC needs to be transcoded in Avid, but Pro Res just works. Premiere and Final Cut X will transcode in the background, not a problem with Pro Res. So I don't see why this is even a discussion? You can't playback the Sony RAW files in DaVinci in real time, that's why I mentioned the issue. It makes working with them pretty much impossible unless you've got a $30k computer, in which you're now talking about a huge post house and HUGE budgets. If you've got that kind of money, why would you shoot with an F55? There is no reason.

 

The only extra piece of software you need is Sony's Catalyst Browse program (which performs a checksum when you transfer footage, so you know for certain that everything copied across safely. The only thing that would make it better is Prores Proxy proxies (but no camera out there seems to offer this with support for the full range of framerates each camera can do, so it's a no go for that reason).

I just use shotput pro, it works fine and it verifies checksum as well. Still doesn't solve the playback issues with Sony RAW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

What on earth are you talking about? The F65 & F55 use the same CFA

The F65 uses an 8k imager, the F55 uses a 4k imager.

The F65 uses an entirely different electronic set. Everything from the imager processor which has to handle an 8k imager to the optical path which has a mechanical shutter, it's all entirely different.

The F65 can actually output a fully debayered HD, 2k and 4k image in real-time as it's captured. Thus, it's a true 4:4:4 RGB camera. The F55 has all the same issues as the other CMOS cameras have, it's not true 4:4:4.

The F65 has little to no rolling shutter effect, thanks to the mechanical shutter

The F65 can record full 8k RAW data package directly off the imager.

 

I could go on and on about the difference, but you'll still think they're the same camera or have any similarities. To me, they couldn't be more different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Yes but you can still clip your other channels even if you're leaving luma, roughly, untouched-- though i doubt it fully is for "off" white balances; and aside isn't YCbCr after gamma correction anyway from the RGB source?

So why is this a non-issue with Alexa, Red or even Blackmagic? If I want to shoot LOG with those cameras, I have no problem setting my WB.

 

What I see is Sony purposely trying to control what the user does in order to save their asses from complaints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F65 uses an 8k imager, the F55 uses a 4k imager.

The F65 uses an entirely different electronic set. Everything from the imager processor which has to handle an 8k imager to the optical path which has a mechanical shutter, it's all entirely different.

The F65 can actually output a fully debayered HD, 2k and 4k image in real-time as it's captured. Thus, it's a true 4:4:4 RGB camera. The F55 has all the same issues as the other CMOS cameras have, it's not true 4:4:4.

The F65 has little to no rolling shutter effect, thanks to the mechanical shutter

The F65 can record full 8k RAW data package directly off the imager.

 

I could go on and on about the difference, but you'll still think they're the same camera or have any similarities. To me, they couldn't be more different.

 

 

 

F65 is not an 8K camera.. Sony dont say that.. they call it a "true 4K" because its got 6K worth of total photo sites ..stacked diagonally .. so after debayer its "true" 4K.. but the CFA is the same as F55.. and I dont think the actual photo sites are different either.. Re rolling shutter.. you imply the F55 has some problems with this.. compared to the mechanical shutter of the F65.. but mechanical shutter is a rolling shutter and the F55 has a global shutter.. !.. zero problems with rolling shutter in the F55.. are you sure you have actually used these camera,s..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F65 uses an 8k imager, the F55 uses a 4k imager.

The F65 uses an entirely different electronic set. Everything from the imager processor which has to handle an 8k imager to the optical path which has a mechanical shutter, it's all entirely different.

The F65 can actually output a fully debayered HD, 2k and 4k image in real-time as it's captured. Thus, it's a true 4:4:4 RGB camera. The F55 has all the same issues as the other CMOS cameras have, it's not true 4:4:4.

The F65 has little to no rolling shutter effect, thanks to the mechanical shutter

The F65 can record full 8k RAW data package directly off the imager.

 

I could go on and on about the difference, but you'll still think they're the same camera or have any similarities. To me, they couldn't be more different.

 

The F55 doesn't have rolling shutter issues, as it has a global shutter. The F65 is not an 8k camera. The CFA, log curves, color space, and color science are all the same between the two cameras. These are facts.

 

Here's another fact. The F65 and F55 are used together ALL the time, by people who know what they are doing, and who have no problems whatsoever.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The F55 doesn't have rolling shutter issues, as it has a global shutter. The F65 is not an 8k camera. The CFA, log curves, color space, and color science are all the same between the two cameras. These are facts.

Somehow I'm not surprised you don't even know the technical specifications of these cameras. So here we go, ripped directly off Sony's own propaganda.

 

"Compared to the 8.8 million photosites of the typical 4K sensor, the F65 sensor has 20 million photosites."

"Your choice of resolution: gloriously supersampled HD, supersampled 2K, true 4K or even 8K"

"The F65 can also output 16-bit linear RAW, which preserves all the information obtained from every photosite on the image sensor—up to 8K of resolution. "

 

https://www.abelcine.com/store/pdfs/F65_Camera_CameraPDF.pdf

 

Ohh and when you come back and say Sony's own propaganda is wrong, don't look at me. It's just another example of why I dislike Sony so much.

 

Here's another fact. The F65 and F55 are used together ALL the time, by people who know what they are doing, and who have no problems whatsoever.

Your point is?

 

They mixed Alexa's and Phantom's and Blackmagic Cinema cameras on Mad Max Fury Road. So the point that you can "match" cameras is kinda silly, of course you can.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your point is?

 

My point is, Tyler, that people choose the F55 as a B camera to the F65 because they look the same. You're right, they could use other cameras, and match them, but they don't. They use the F55. Now why would they do that if, as according to you, they look completely different?

 

If you don't like Sony cameras, that's fine. If you can't get good results with them, don't use them. Just don't pretend that the camera is somehow at fault.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

My point is, Tyler, that people choose the F55 as a B camera to the F65 because they look the same.

But they don't look the same. I've watched a dozen video's comparing the two cameras and in my eyes, they don't look anything a like. The F65 in 4k mode has a far warmer and natural color look, thanks to the lack of bayer pattern interference with colors. Again, it's a TRUE RGB 4:4:4 camera, unlike the F55... or for that matter, any other single CMOS camera I know of.

 

Why would anyone spend the money on shooting with the F65, which by the way is GROSSLY expensive to rent and own... when they can use the lighter, smaller and far less expensive F55? They use the F65 because it's such a stand out camera, it's performance is so dramatically better then anything else Sony makes, it's worth dealing with.

 

Dude, I'm in the coloring suite all the time, working with these cameras in raw form, not in finished colored form where you can't even tell what it looks like because it's been so manipulated and down-sampled, all that's left is a soft reflection of what the camera actually looks like. Also... where do you see 4k movies? Most DCP's are 2k, most theaters in the US are 2k and television, may I remind you is heavily compressed 1080p, 8 bit 4:2:0 color, just like BluRay.

 

So again... the reason why people use the F55 as a B camera is because by the time they've done all the final picture manipulation, what you see at home could have been shot on any camera. The filmmakers know this, so thats why they don't mind using a myriad of other cameras. Plus, if you're on a "sony" shoot, why not use a Sony B camera? Makes sense to me.

 

If you don't like Sony cameras, that's fine. If you can't get good results with them, don't use them. Just don't pretend that the camera is somehow at fault.

Good results? I can get good results with a $998 blackmagic pocket camera. I can get good results with a $10k Ursa Mini 4.6k package. I can get good results with a $25k Red Dragon package.

 

Why would I pay nearly $40k to get "good results" with a Sony F55?

 

My point is, if I'm spending MORE MONEY then the comparable competition for "good results", why am I spending that extra money?

 

That's my point... I see no benefit to a $40k Sony F55. If you're shooting ENG (which is still 1080p) you can buy three FS7MKII packages and shoot multi-camera.

 

P.S. Nice job ignoring the spec data I posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have it your way, Tyler. You can continue to rant on about how useless Sony cameras are. I'm sure there are a few people here who will take your opinion as fact without further investigation. It's not the first time you've ranted about poor quality imagery that has to be 'saved' in post by a heroic colorist (You), and I doubt that it will be the last.

 

I use these cameras regularly, as do many of my contemporaries, and none of us ever seem to have a problem. Make of that what you will, but remember, it's a poor workman who blames his tools.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Have it your way, Tyler. You can continue to rant on about how useless Sony cameras are.

It's not about how useless they are, it's about how people flock to something because "It's a Sony".

 

I'm sure there are a few people here who will take your opinion as fact without further investigation.

I hope they open their eyes to the alternatives, instead of being blinded by name brand.

 

It's not the first time you've ranted about poor quality imagery that has to be 'saved' in post by a heroic colorist (You), and I doubt that it will be the last.

For 100 years, filmmakers have been putting film into cameras, lighting properly and projecting it onto the big screen, without much correction. I don't see why digital cinema cameras have to be treated any differently. Why do you think big productions have a STAFF of people just in charge of color on set?

 

Make of that what you will, but remember, it's a poor workman who blames his tools.

I shoot with a 1982 built, Aaton LTR with 2nd generation Optar glass, an old rubber Arri mattebox, some old glass filters from the 70's and a tripod. I love that package, it's light, mobile, no ancillary things that make it challenging to work with, and the results are always perfect.

 

I shoot with a blackmagic pocket camera rig, 1080p, Rokinon primes which are never very clean, a junk tripod and some scratched up filtration. Yet I seem to always have great results.

 

I have five lights, three of them work. I have some gels I collected over the years. I don't have any c stands, I don't have any flags, I don't have an HMI either. I light with tungsten and change gels to compensate for color temp. Yet my results are always good.

 

When I rent equipment, Red, alexa, canon, 5 ton grip truck with all the lights you can imagine, the image is always good! Sure, I think some modern equipment is expensive for no reason, but I generally get satisfactory results and my clients are always happy.

 

Yet here I am, I've shot 3 times with 3 different SONY cameras, FS7, F5, F55 and all three times, the results have been below the threshold of what I'm use to. I color Sony cameras all the time from other filmmakers and I'm always fighting the image. Where the RED, Alexa, Blackmagic and even C300MKII, they simply fall into place perfectly when coloring. I do a little tweak here and there, apply that LUT across the board as my base corrector and I'm ready to start coloring the show.

 

I feel like I'm trying to build a race car engine with woodworking tools when I use the Sony cameras. I don't understand their terminology, I don't understand the menu system, I don't understand the cameras built-in limitations put there clearly to cover their own asses. I don't understand the high cost vs performance either. I don't get any of it and I'm not the only one, there are MANY of us out there on other forums and who I've met in person, people who agree with me straight up. Are we ALL bad cinematographers or is there something inherently wrong with these cameras that Sony fanboys are unwilling to admit because they're "good enough" for their specific needs.

 

I will 100% admit the Blackmagic cameras have their flaws, I know them and I've talked about them quite a bit. Yet the cost vs performance level is off the chart. I recommend the cameras to filmmakers, who like myself need something to make their own creations with. But when people come up with flaws they find, I will agree with them and even suggest another course of action to help them get through the issues.

 

Yet when I come on here and complain about Sony's, the result I get are a bunch of fanboys who don't offer solutions, just give me the same ol' line about I must be doing something wrong. Sorry guys, but I'm not doing anything wrong, the cameras have problems and I can go through a break-down list of everything I've seen with these cameras over the years, far more then my current complaint. I just don't like them and all I expect from other people who work with them is to admit there are issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think, Tyler, with all respect, it comes down to "i don't understand" in this case. And I think it's incumbent upon us when we are working with a camera to understand it's way of working (and conversely whether or not it's the right tool for the job). Admittedly, when it comes to video systems, Sony is my favorite, because I came up with them and understand them (as opposed to Canon and Panasonic which I can use and will when appropriate though I don't particularly like them). But, this isn't to say I'm a fan-boy of any kind, because frankly I don't really care. But, even with limited understanding of the F55 and it's menus when I picked it up; using a MLUT on it, we got the exact look the director was after easily with plenty of room later on to sweeten the images to be even better than what was originally envisioned.
I also think it's a major disservice to try to speak authoritatively about a system which later you admit, you don't understand because those who really are in the dark (lol) about these things will often take our word as gospel. There's nothing wrong with saying this camera doesn't work for me for these reasons in these situations, that's very helpful. However, it's a different world to blame that on the camera proper without further clarification about where and how it does work well.

 

My 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet when I come on here and complain about Sony's, the result I get are a bunch of fanboys who don't offer solutions, just give me the same ol' line about I must be doing something wrong.

I just don't like them and all I expect from other people who work with them is to admit there are issues.

I am not a fanboy or a cheerleader for any make of camera. I use Sony cameras, just like I use Arri, Canon or Panasonic. If I had issues with them, I wouldn't use them.

 

 

For 100 years, filmmakers have been putting film into cameras, lighting properly and projecting it onto the big screen, without much correction. I don't see why digital cinema cameras have to be treated any differently.

They don't have to be treated differently. I could show you F55 frame grabs direct from dailies that have had nothing more than a REC709 LUT applied, and which look great.

 

Again, if your technique does not get you the results you want, then you need to change your technique, or change your camera. Either is fine, but don't blame the camera.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Ok clarification right here.

 

- Harsh clipping

The F5 and F55 are better then the FS7 when it comes to this, but I've found these and specifically other Sony cameras, to suffer from harsh clipping. An example of this would be reflections from sunlight during day shooting or simply bright lights hitting the lens from anything really, when shooting at night. Instead of a smooth gradual roll-off in the highlights, it simply clips. I find myself constantly having to protect these highlights more then any other camera I've worked with, whilst shooting on set. I'm a stickler for blown out highlights, I refuse to accept them.

 

- Noisy blacks

Again, the F5 and F55 are better then the FS7 in this, but I've noticed the Sony cameras have a very particular noise in the mid's that I haven't seen in other cameras. The camera's happy spot is around 2000 ISO, that's where it appears to have the best dynamic range. Yet no matter where I set the ISO, the blacks are always noisy and muddy. The only way to solve that problem is to over-expose, which leads to the highlights being an issue. Other cameras you'd just raise the ISO and watch the noise disappear.

 

- Menu system

As talked about above, Sony's menu system is atrocious. The F5 and F55's side menu control is great, but it's lacking the critical functions that were a big issue with the standard menu structure. So whilst it's awesome to be able to dial in a majority of critical things right on the side of the camera, I find the regular menu's to be still atrocious and I'm always going in there to make minor tweaks.

 

- Card compatibility and monopoly on manufacturing

This is really an FS7 issue, but I'll say it here. There is a huge problem with the QXD cards and readers. First off, some cards and some readers are incompatible with one another. We recorded to cards that wouldn't read in a newer revision reader, but read fine in an older revision reader. We found some of the aftermarket cards had checksum errors whilst copying data as well. The SXS cards are far more stable, but that's because there isn't an aftermarket for them. Sure, there are aftermarket readers, but Sony is the only manufacturer of cards. This means they control pricing and that really sucks. So over-all, either the QXD card issues or the SXS card issues (cost) you're kinda screwed either way you go.

 

- Lying to customers on performance

Sony has been doing this for years and I've ignored it because years ago I was a Sony fanboy. Today however, they claim the FS7, F5 and F55 can do things, they can't do without expensive updates/upgrades, or at all. If you read the press releases, if you visit conventions, if you talk to reps, everyone makes the same claim. It's a way to get people into buying a product and spend more money on accessories before it doing what they were told it will do. I dislike manufacturers who do this. RED makes no such claims, they tell customers up front the camera has nothing and needs the following accessories to work, they even have bundles on their website. Arri makes no such a claim either, they make it abundantly clear the camera records Pro Res stock and it costs more money to get ArriRaw. Canon, Blackmagic even AJA's Cion, these guys let consumers know if there is something they will need.

 

I gotta run, but I'll think of more soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you explain your problems with F55 rolling shutter..? F65 is not an 8K recording camera .. if you are getting this info off their website I doubt you have ever used it.. can you really say you have actually shot with this camera on a production.. not seen it in a box in a rental house..

 

Arri chose SxS for internal rec on Alexa.. yes they are expensive.. but they are most likely the most robust and sophisticated card out there.. power goes.. you "restore media" in the same camera and the controller finishes the clip right there ..

What do you mean after market cards.. check sum errors.. ?

 

It sort of seems you are trying to validity the very low budget fringe part of the industry you work in.. where crew,gear and know how just dont always seem to be up to par.. yes good gear is expensive.. because when you know how to use it it produces good results.. its not just to waste money..yes good crew are expensive.. even AC,s that you have complained about in the past getting paid $100 a day !.. if you can get a really fantastic footage from a $4,000 camera in REC 709.. good for you.. and Im sure its good enough for your productions.. but its just madness to say that a Sony F55 is crap just because you dont seem have the skills to use it properly .. again not doing yourself any favors .. ..

Edited by Robin R Probyn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I've almost exclusively have been using the Alexa for the past seven years, so I don't have much personal experience with the others. I keep asking other DP's how their shows are going when they are using other brands, models, just to keep in the loop.

 

So without first-hand experience, I mainly go by how the images look on the screen. Up until "The Crown", however, I hadn't seen anything shot on the Sony F55 that made me excited for the camera (unlike the projects shot on the Sony F65, many of which have left me envious...) "The Crown" is hands-down gorgeous.

 

I feel that the Sony F55 needs a bit of an overhaul to keep up with the competition -- the Panasonic Varicam, for example, has more appealing features to it. I'm not keen on only having three color temp presets with the Sony F55, similar to the Sony F35. If I don't have a DIT creating looks on set, I'm very fond of playing with color temp settings on the Alexa, and sometimes a shift of a few hundred degrees can help match two cameras with different types of lenses on them.

 

A few directors I've worked with who have done projects with the Sony F55 weren't exactly fans but for reasons that are unclear. One complained about "noise" but I think they meant fan noise, not image noise. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next generation of the Sony F55, especially if gets closer to what the F65 offers. In the past, I liked the look of the Sony F35 images, by the way.

 

I do run into new fans of the Panasonic Varicam all the time.

 

I'm still waiting for the dust to settle on the Red Dragon vs. Helium debate, though most people seem to love the VistaVision Dragon sensor images.

 

I used the Alexa Mini in 3.2K ProRes mode for a UHD/HDR finish last fall and was pretty happy with the results.

 

The BlackMagic 4.6K interests me as a potential owner but I have yet to see any major projects shot on one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The BlackMagic 4.6K interests me as a potential owner but I have yet to see any major projects shot on one.

 

I have some B-cam material from India that we shot on the 4.6k alongside an F35 as our A-camera, and the Blackmagic doesn't really hold up as well as I'd hoped.

 

I'll post up a comparison once I get to having a proper play around with them in the grade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...