Jump to content



Photo

Tye's Sony Rant


  • Please log in to reply
215 replies to this topic

#21 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2458 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 04 March 2017 - 09:31 AM

F55 has certainly been used for quite a few high end TV productions,given a bit of boost by the Netflix /Amazon "true" 17-9.. 4K dictate from on high .. and some feature films have used it as a B cam for the 65.. and just by itself also.. I think its fair to class it as a high end camera.. esp when shooting RAW.. 

 

There is no argument that the Alexa has a big hold of the feature film,commercial world.. that is self perpetuating ..  and deservedly so Im sure.. but I think they will have to make a 4K sensor camera sooner rather than later.. just for the Netflix /Amazon productions that are looking to take over the world.. for good or for bad.. 


  • 0

#22 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3433 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:01 PM

So wait, which of the Sony CineAltas were actually taken seriously for narrative work? Just the F65? There has to be one or two more.

The F900 was widely used for narrative. The F23 was used in TV a lot, as was the F35, which also was used for features. Currently the F65 & F55 are the flagship 'narrative' cameras.


  • 0

#23 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3433 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2017 - 12:04 PM

The F65, does look really good. Every show I've seen with that camera has looked great.

Yet the F55, which looks almost identical, does not?


  • 0

#24 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:11 PM

Yet the F55, which looks almost identical, does not?

 

It doesn't look identical, not even remotely close. The F65 has an entirely different imager, different electronics and can capture RAW stock. 


  • 0

#25 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3433 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2017 - 02:29 PM

 

It doesn't look identical, not even remotely close. The F65 has an entirely different imager, different electronics and can capture RAW stock. 

What on earth are you talking about? The F65 & F55 use the same CFA, the same color science and the same log curves. Both cameras are capable of shooting RAW. They are used together, without problems, by plenty of DPs, on all manner of projects.

 

As usual, you are making sweeping generalizations that are based on personal prejudice, and that are directly contradicted by the evidence.


  • 0

#26 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:04 PM

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.


  • 0

#27 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:12 PM

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.


  • 0

#28 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:14 PM

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.
  • 0

#29 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7502 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:31 PM

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?


  • 0

#30 Satsuki Murashige

Satsuki Murashige
  • Sustaining Members
  • 3510 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 March 2017 - 03:53 PM

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.
  • 0

#31 Mark Kenfield

Mark Kenfield
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1215 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Australia/Wherever The Wind Takes Me

Posted 04 March 2017 - 06:05 PM

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).


  • 1

#32 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2458 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 04 March 2017 - 08:03 PM

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.. 


  • 0

#33 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 03:57 AM

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.
  • 0

#34 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:12 AM

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.
  • 0

#35 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 04:17 AM

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.
  • 0

#36 Robin R Probyn

Robin R Probyn
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2458 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Tokyo

Posted 05 March 2017 - 05:56 AM

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.. 


  • 0

#37 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3433 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 11:52 AM

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.


  • 0

#38 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 01:07 PM

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...a_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.
  • 1

#39 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3433 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 01:52 PM

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.


  • 0

#40 Tyler Purcell

Tyler Purcell
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4324 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 05 March 2017 - 02:25 PM

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.
  • 0


Broadcast Solutions Inc

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineLab

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

CineLab

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Visual Products

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Ritter Battery