My Review of the F55

[Blair S. Paulsen]

I hear you loud and clear Rudi. The short answer appears to be the cost and turnaround time for 4K VFX elements sharply limits the number of 4K masters produced. There are also some issues at the exhibitors sites in terms of servers, media blocks and projector operations that all too often result in the few 4K DCPs that are actually distributed being dumbed down to 2K for ease of projection.

BTW, the argument that the cost of mastering in 4K is trivial compared to P&A budgets is both true and spurious - sorry. FWIW its not just the extra cost of 4K VFX vs 2K, it's getting elements delivered quickly enough to hit release dates - see Social Network.

IAC, I do believe we will see a major marketing campaign extolling the virtues of 4K exhibition to attract patrons to the local Bijou, but not until the studios have enough product mastered in 4K to support it. Paging Gordon Moore, we need faster and cheaper systems to make 4K CGI as easy as 2K... Either that or we need more studio features that don't rely so heavily on VFX shots :glare:

Cheers - #19

 

[Mark K.]

Agree with Mike I wholeheartedly do, but there is one thing that still baffles me in this whole 4K revolution, or evolution more like it.

There is very little 4K content to consume at home, just like there was when HD was first introduced, and although the availability of said content will be/should be far quicker this time around, that ignores the fact that where this move should first take place is at the cinema exhibition level. Sony has had 4K projectors for a LONG while now, before there were any films shot in 4K, and thousands of theaters have now implemented these projectors as part of their conversion into digital. And now we have Barco and Christie also making 4K projectors. The home/TV market may not be quite ready yet but the cinema market has been for quite a while. So where are the 4K movies? Very, very, very few shows are shown at 4K, and in very, very, very few venues. Why? Everyone seems to agree that 4K makes more sense at the large size of cinema screens. Add to that the undeniable fact that studios and exhibitors are desperate to find new gimmicks to bring audiences to set their butts onto those $10-20 seats, a fact amply demonstrated by the "new again" 3D trend. So what's holding them from exhibiting in 4K, using those projectors that have been in place for years now? 4K finish too expensive? Please! The cost of mastering and delivering in 4K is a tiny fraction of what they spend in promoting films, trying to guarantee that all-important "opening", and it certainly is WAY cheaper than the widespread 2D to 3D conversions they make many films go through nowadays. Add to that the fact that a lot of celluloid acquired films can easily be scanned at 4K, those scanners have existed for even longer than the 4K projectors, and it is hard to understand what is holding back the migration to theatrical 4K exhibition....

And if a technology which is perfectly suited for a particular medium, and the infrastructure to showcase such technology is mostly in place, and still that medium is not championing said technology, then what are we to infer from that myopic behavior? And don't forget that, however disconnected from each other the parts that form the whole of the conglomerate that is Sony function, they pioneered 4K projection, have the biggest lineup of 4K cameras AND they own a major movie studio...

I suspect one big reason for the holdup is that only the biggest films can muster the budget to take their films through post in 4K all the way through, but then those same big budget films have such incredibly high numbers of VFX shots, that doing them in 4K is cost prohibitive... and so the 4K images are downrezzed to 2K and nothing much changes.

A LOT of features are shooting to 2K ProRes4444 on Alexa for a reason.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

... Either that or we need more studio features that don't rely so heavily on VFX shots

that would be most welcome, whether shown in 4K, 2K or SD!

 

[Mike Kushner]

"Can" look similar is not "do" look similar. If you replace the body panels, a Corvette "can" look like a Ferrari. But it doesn't look like that when you buy it, and making those changes doesn't make it a Ferrari. Fact is, grading is a destructive process, by definition. If you're changing an image from one camera to look like something from another camera, it's not going to do that as well as something whose natural tendency is to look that way. And the chances that you'll get it right without the other image as a basis for comparison are not good. Besides, all camera manufacturers have their products turn out images with particular characteristics for a reason, and the fact that they're all a bit different should be celebrated and used for a creative advantage, not homogenized by trying to make it something it's not.

Ferrari analogy falls short for me. As it is an object with a cover and insides. An image is not an object and it only has an outside.

 

[Mike Kushner]

Love the 4K and the 5K! Read pioneered this and am thankful. Just wish the post was a little quicker for the day to day quick turnaround jobs.

It was a natural progression once most print photographers went to digital. Incredible pioneering was in the bus speed to hard drives And solid-state, And of course the constant upgrades and hardware upgradability which is great for us consumers.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Ferrari analogy falls short for me. As it is an object with a cover and insides. An image is not an object and it only has an outside.

Mike actually, it's an excellent analogy and an image does have an outside and an inside, so to speak. The outside is how we perceive the image, the inside is the supporting data. Why the distinction? Because the whole philosophy behind image compression is that some of the supporting data (the inside) of the image can be removed and how it appears to our eyes (the outside) will hardly be visually affected. This largely holds true... as long as you don't start changing the image. Once you start doing extreme grades what was largely invisible deficiencies to the underlying data (inside) can become glaring apparent. In other words two visually identical images can behave very differently under grading. One can hold up and one can start to "fall apart." And this is dependent on the completeness of the image data--most of which we can't see. Which is why it's analogous to the "inside" of a car in your example.

 

[M Most]

Either that or we need more studio features that don't rely so heavily on VFX shots :glare:

Despite the fact that I was a visual effects supervisor for almost 8 years (or maybe because of it....) that is something that I, for one, would very much welcome.
:cheers2:

A LOT of features are shooting to 2K ProRes4444 on Alexa for a reason.

Actually, my observation has been that the great majority of features being shot on Alexa are recording using ArriRaw, even more so since the Gemini showed up as a considerably lower cost alternative to Codex. But I would add that "my observation" is based on the part of the industry in which I work, which usually doesn't include the very low budget features. And I would also add that I don't necessarily agree with that, since in my experience there just isn't a lot of difference between the two in terms of image integrity, debayering issues (in camera vs. in post), grading capability, or anything else with the possible exception of slightly cleaner matte extractions. But at the studio/sensibly budgeted indie level, ArriRaw seems to be a lot more common, at least in my world.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Despite the fact that I was a visual effects supervisor for almost 8 years (or maybe because of it....) that is something that I, for one, would very much welcome.
:cheers2:



Actually, my observation has been that the great majority of features being shot on Alexa are recording using ArriRaw, even more so since the Gemini showed up as a considerably lower cost alternative to Codex. But I would add that "my observation" is based on the part of the industry in which I work, which usually doesn't include the very low budget features. And I would also add that I don't necessarily agree with that, since in my experience there just isn't a lot of difference between the two in terms of image integrity, debayering issues (in camera vs. in post), grading capability, or anything else with the possible exception of slightly cleaner matte extractions. But at the studio/sensibly budgeted indie level, ArriRaw seems to be a lot more common, at least in my world.

At least from my reading of American Cinematographer, over the past two years it would appear a sizeable amount of productions were shot on Prores 4444...in particular the smaller footprint/budget ones (as you noted). I believe there was at least one (or more) examples in this month's issue, alone.

However, I wonder if that trend will go down, now that I believe Arri-Raw can be captured on-camera in a more seamless way via on-board Codex, correct?

 

[Mike Kushner]

Not bad logic, Peter. But if you are judging an image by what it could be with grading, you have to also admit that a Corvette could be tuned up to be faster and handle better than a Ferrari, depending on how the Ferrari was tuned (or graded).
Raw is awesome and offers so much flexibility, But in my quick turnaround world, I want to get the image in camera as close to the desired look as possible and save the time it takes to grade the raw for fixing shortcomings. Just wrapped a print shoot today, and love the fact that I could shoot a JPEG and raw at the same time. Now I have raw flexibility for fixes or future changes, and a JPEG to deliver immediately for quick turnaround. For me that's the best of both worlds. Wish I could record high speed on the epic, with that same flexibility of both formats recorded at the same time. That would be unbelievable for both the big-time motion pictures and the lower budget television shoots.

 

[M Most]

At least from my reading of American Cinematographer, over the past two years it would appear a sizeable amount of productions were shot on Prores 4444...in particular the smaller footprint/budget ones (as you noted). I believe there was at least one (or more) examples in this month's issue, alone.

However, I wonder if that trend will go down, now that I believe Arri-Raw can be captured on-camera in a more seamless way via on-board Codex, correct?

Define "sizeable." Television, absolutely - for the most part, nobody records anything else. For features, well, that's a bit of a different story, even with 2K Prores available.

The onboard Codex recorder is a great convenience, but Codex is a more expensive infrastructure, from the cards right on up to the transfer dock. Most budget driven productions are still opting for the Gemini, a much more economical route. Not always as reliable, but considerably less costly.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Define "sizeable." Television, absolutely - for the most part, nobody records anything else. For features, well, that's a bit of a different story, even with 2K Prores available.

The onboard Codex recorder is a great convenience, but Codex is a more expensive infrastructure, from the cards right on up to the transfer dock. Most budget driven productions are still opting for the Gemini, a much more economical route. Not always as reliable, but considerably less costly.

In this months issue alone, the short film Wild Horses (shot by ROBERT RICHARDSON), the foreign feature The Hunt, the English feature Berberian Sound Studio, and the Lebanese feature The Attack were all shot Alexa ProRes 4:4:4.

The two big studio features, The Lone Ranger and The Wolverine were both shot ArriRaw.

A number of the smaller features they cover (like this month), seem to be happy working with the ProRes. I've been seeing it pretty regularly. The bigger budget features appear to be going ArriRaw, yes.

 

[M Most]

In this months issue alone, the short film Wild Horses (shot by ROBERT RICHARDSON), the foreign feature The Hunt, the English feature Berberian Sound Studio, and the Lebanese feature The Attack were all shot Alexa ProRes 4:4:4.

The two big studio features, The Lone Ranger and The Wolverine were both shot ArriRaw.

A number of the smaller features they cover (like this month), seem to be happy working with the ProRes. I've been seeing it pretty regularly. The bigger budget features appear to be going ArriRaw, yes.

I wasn't implying that it isn't being used. In fact, we just finished dailies on "American Heist" in New Orleans using 2K Prores. I was just saying that we don't run into it nearly as much as ArriRaw.

 

[Brian Merlen]

im of the personal opinion shooting a fat negative raw is the way to go. you want baked in dailies, go for it, connect that third party recorder and by all means enjoy. but i still think raw workflows and staying raw as far as possible though post is the way to go unless they reconform after an offline, which is also fine. The nice thing is these days we all have options as far as workflows and codecs go, but i think trashing the raw and not relinking to it, or cutting raw is not an ideal way to utilize true raw machines, Red, Arri, non baked in true raw, no ISO, no Kelvin... true raw not fake marketing terms raw.... like some brands try to push raw but some aspects are baked...thats not really raw...

i think shooting baked in is fine, but why shoot baked in on a high end raw camera when so many lesser priced options can do the baked in job for pennies on the dollar? a DSLR is a fine baked in camera, an Alexa or a Red is super overkill to shoot baked in on...solely baked in with no hope of relinking even for the finish...

just seems less then ideal to trash the master raw files being they are the best copy with the least compression and recompression and recompression...that you have...but some just feel its overkill, who knows...suppose its a budgetary thing for some productions, but i dont know why they even shoot red/arri if they can't afford to use the raw files, they can get away on other systems then...

 

[Peter Moretti]

Not bad logic, Peter. But if you are judging an image by what it could be with grading, you have to also admit that a Corvette could be tuned up to be faster and handle better than a Ferrari, depending on how the Ferrari was tuned (or graded).
Raw is awesome and offers so much flexibility, But in my quick turnaround world, I want to get the image in camera as close to the desired look as possible and save the time it takes to grade the raw for fixing shortcomings. Just wrapped a print shoot today, and love the fact that I could shoot a JPEG and raw at the same time. Now I have raw flexibility for fixes or future changes, and a JPEG to deliver immediately for quick turnaround. For me that's the best of both worlds. Wish I could record high speed on the epic, with that same flexibility of both formats recorded at the same time. That would be unbelievable for both the big-time motion pictures and the lower budget television shoots.

Mike,

Having never driven either car but having done more than my fair share of Ferrari oogling, I think if a person's strategy is to buy a Corvette and turn it into a Ferrari they are going about things the wrong way.

But I do agree that it's of course best to shoot what works best for your workflow. I actually started a whole thread on this very topic a few months ago, as the ability to shoot smaller files and have RAW as a backup can be very useful.

 

[jamesbridges]

Convergent Design Odyssey 7Q is an option

 

[Curt Pair]

I recently worked on a reality show that wanted the look of Epic but the user interface closer to an ENG camera. They settled on the F55 with the Fujinon 19-90mm zoom and it works great. Built in ND filters, audio pots, white balance preset switches, auto audio levels, long battery life, quiet fan, etc.

I own an Epic and love it, but there are jobs where functionality and convenience are more important than image quality. For run n' gun documentary type work, I would use countless other cameras before pulling out my Epic.

Interesting post... I'm the EXACT opposite! I have worked long and hard to configure my Epic and Cabrio configuration for ENG style run and gun work. (I own both Cabrios). It's taken a while, but I FINALLY have the camera rigged out to be perfect for ENG type work. The clients LOVE the look and I get to work my Epic on many more projects than people would EVER expect!

I do have to transcode to other file types, but owning a Rocket... I set it up and make that happen overnight. Easy, no real hassle at all!

The fan thing makes me laugh! Last week I did 3 hour long interviews and the fan wasn't an issue EVER! I guess my 'adjusting' of the fan, on the fly during recording isn't as easy for others as it is for me.

I can configure the camera to be fairly light... having worked on a "reality show" that shot F55, I found the Sony WAY heavier than my Epic. When it was all said and done, the F55 weighed 58 pounds.... so 14 hours of handheld with that was very difficult compared to my 35 pound Epic!

To each their own, I guess...

 

[Neal_Norton]

Both the F55 and the Epic weigh in at about 5lbs. If the Sony had 53 pounds of accessories added it must have included an underwater housing!

 

[Dmitry Burenok]

Don't like F55. Very much. Menu and knobs arrangement feels like "What r u guys smoking out there?". Terrible and useless. Picture has familiar NHK TV hyper realistic vivid overcranked style by default. I wish them made it interlaced as well )) SEPARATE RECORDER - IS IT STILL 2005 and we working on F35 ??? Bad joke. Hate look, feel, design, interface, cards, everything. Price is for dealers, not users - I know SONY providing them up to 30% discount from enduser price. So it is very good for dealers, this is why they screaming so much about how cool is this camera.

 

[Brian Merlen]

could use some help

could use some help

does anyone know if any of the F55s now have the prores/mxf upgrade they were talking about adding via a hardware paid update? I have a shoot tomorrow where they intend to shoot dnxhd115 at 23.98 but from all my reading i can't for the life of me figure out if ANYONE had gotten the hardware upgrade. i am pretty sure the producer doesn't have the upgrade on this camera but its 2am and i can't call anyone. i suppose i will just have to make them record in another codec if need be, but i am trying to be overly prepared so since i couldn't sleep i been looking into the workflow a lot...


so yea if anyone has the answer to this, highly appreciated! pretty sure I'm going to need to do some transcoding though from what i have read so far...

 

[Nick Morrison]

does anyone know if any of the F55s now have the prores/mxf upgrade they were talking about adding via a hardware paid update? I have a shoot tomorrow where they intend to shoot dnxhd115 at 23.98 but from all my reading i can't for the life of me figure out if ANYONE had gotten the hardware upgrade. i am pretty sure the producer doesn't have the upgrade on this camera but its 2am and i can't call anyone. i suppose i will just have to make them record in another codec if need be, but i am trying to be overly prepared so since i couldn't sleep i been looking into the workflow a lot...


so yea if anyone has the answer to this, highly appreciated! pretty sure I'm going to need to do some transcoding though from what i have read so far...

Are they seriously shooting DNX115? Thats an 8bit codec. Yikes. Many proxy recorders offer DNX 175 10bit. Surprised they are going with such a low bitrate.