Sean Sweeney
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2008
- Messages
- 189
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Having worked with the F65 recently where the final product was going large format (70mm and 4K projection), I can give some real-world examples of how the F65 compares to the Epic, at least based on my experiences and those of the key crew members.
I was working on a project wherein it started shooting on the RED Epic in a stereo arrangement, and it had a number of really strong points: the cameras could be flown on a steadicam, rocked handheld, and generally moved around pretty quickly. Given this was a feature doc shoot, our resources were more in line with that of a fiction feature, so it wasn't full run and gun. The Epic's physical configurations were a major advantage when pressed for time, trying to capture 'the moment'.
The project took a hiatus, and after reviewing some of the footage collected, the DOP, director, and producers weren't full satisfied with the images from the Epic. Low light performance wasn't what they were expecting, and the overall 'look', while not 'bad' in any sense of the word, wasn't fitting with their vision of the project.
They decided to switch over to the Sony F65, in a stereo arrangement, and it raised a number of new advantages and challenges. We were, apparently, the first in the world to shoot the F65 in stereo, and it's not a total suprise as to why. It's physical dimensions are much, much worse for stereo shooting. It's a large camera, and the nature of its layout lends itself to a rather pendulous center of cravity, which can be very tricky once you mount it on a crane.
Beyond that, the data rates off the camera are enormous. Over the course of 13 days we shot in excess of 25 terabytes. Our pipeline configuration was challenging. We took those problems in stride, found a solution that worked and went with it. The image quality seemed to be the reason for the switch, and I have to say, objectively (and as an Epic owner), that the Sony F65 does truly look fantastic. Overall, much like the Alexa, the 'look' (irrespective of technical details) was what ultimately won people over. The key crew generally preferred the look of the F65 for a variety of reasons, from a more pleasing color rendition to a better resolution of detail in wide shots (according to them), compared to the Epic.
Ultimately camera choice is going to be determined by many factors that exist beyond the pure technical specifications of a given product. So much of what determines the 'right' choice for a project is highly subjective, and I truly believe that there is no wrong choice. We've simply got tools to choose from. Some prefer the look of the Alexa, others the Epic. And that's fair. What I think is problematic (and something that many here on RedUser are guilty of) is the proclamation of opinion as fact.
The cognitive dissonance on display when someone insists the full, objective superiority of one camera over another is astonishing and, frankly, speaks to a sincere lack of understanding when it comes to the tools of the trade. The Epic is not the best choice for every job, nor are any of the other competing cameras. The concerns many have with RED or the Epic are not all unfounded, and sometimes those concerns will lead them to shoot with another camera. It's as simple as that. Misinformation will always exist, but those of us on RedUser shouldn't mount our high horse too quickly - this place doesn't have a great track record when it comes to objective, unbiased information. This is a great thread, however, and hopefully it'll help shed a bit of light as to some folks' choices regarding camera selection. I think the only real solution is education - not cheerleading a given camera.
