Sony F3 has no real film look
Sorry for the stupid tittle
We shot a short this spring on the F3 (mostly in 422) that was shown on bigger Festival (Locarno) and the picture was mostly really nice but sometimes it had this videoish sharpness in it.
I also did some shorts with the FS100 and I didn't see the same thing happening. But we were also using photo-lenses there.
Has someone found some kind of filter (SFX,BPM) to get rid of that.
A week ago I taked to an other DP and she said just use bad lenses.
What are your experiences? If seen the SFX used on a lot of shoots just because digital is too sharp.
Digital is what you make of it if the camera gives you the controls. What digital doesn't have is film grain (although certainly it has other forms of noise).
Did you try dialing down sharpness all the way or possibly disabling it?
The two approached might yield slightly different results but you should be able to get rid of any signs of edge enhances which is often over done and not always very controllable on less expensive cameras.
One really has to know why film looks like film (and its many variants in stock) to know how to properly control the look.
Given the high resolving power and the extremely high quality lenses being used on digital cinema cameras, it's not about using bad lenses.
I don't think it's that simple. I've worked a lot with Alexa and Red footage. And these have a film look.
I liked the gain of the Ikonoskop as well as the one of the Penelope Delta. But this digital looking pictures is something I also found on other forums. Without any results.
The picture has something of a EX. Can someone agree on that?
(Sharpness was really low)
I think your questions here is why didn't I get more of a film look and what internal setting are owners using for a softer image with the F3???
I'm sorry Christian but if you had issues with the look of the video for your project you would have been able to change it during the shoot if you had hired a DP who knows the F3.
The F3 is no different than the Alexa or the Red. What makes a difference is the lenses in front of the sensor and how the DP chooses to use them, and yes there are picture profile setting is enhance any look you want from color to image quality. I would suggest hiring a DP who really knows their camera.
You should take the time to watch the Zacuto Shootout part 3 and you'll see just how amazing the F3 really is.
The F3 is no different than the Alexa
If only that was true .. :)
Revenge 2012 is another is a good example. When he is entering the door there is some strange things happening in the highlights in the tree's. fs100 4:45 and 5:25 f3. Well it's a bit oversharpen.
With the latitude of the Alexa it's not distracting.
I don't say the F3 is a bad camera. It works solid and the picture is really good.
I just want to find out why in some cases I feel like looking at video material. In 2 parts of the movie low light int. and a wide at daytime it poped out. But all the rest is film. Maybe it's just because it's the sony look.
an older post:
I'm shooting film, and I keep getting this annoying artifact: color. I'm really disappointed that it doesn't have that dramatic black-and-white look that I grew up with. Does anyone know how I can tune this out?
In the mean time, I'm looking for an app for my iPod that will allow me to lay a track of record pops & clicks and/or tape hiss over music and podcasts while I listen to them. Does anyone know of such an app? It must exist, because there's lots of pop music throwing "record player noise" into their tracks.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :) The look you want to achieve is subjective, and there's nothing wrong with it one way or another. I have to admit to scratching my head as so many people dashed to DSLRs so they could flood the industry with super-bokeh, shallow DOF shots.
I acknowledge the sentimentality of the film-look objective just like the lomo movement. I can even see how one or the other might be more appropriate for a specific production. Even so, I look at material shot with today's finest digital acquisition gear and can't help but simply appreciate it.
What I don't get, and I'm not pointing fingers at the original poster here, is any mindset that mimicking film even to the point of its shortcomings is some sort of higher standard to be achieved. I guess it's the optical equivalent of audio's tube-n-turntable crowd.
Enough light-hearted musing. I hope I didn't throw a hand grenade into the thread. :)
Clint, Its just amazing how there is a viral perception of single sensor digital video cameras. Red certainly gave the Indie film maker a complete camera package, while the DSLR's had to build rigs to hold all that makes up a complete video camera. The ability to shoot 4K has raised the Red perception to an all time high, while most of what is seen from this camera is on the web were 4K is useless. The Alexa comes along with a complete package of HD/multiple codec choices and sound inputs priced properly around 60K and suddenly it has the best sensor to create even more latitude and color and was quickly adopted by most TV productions. Then the F3 was introduced as an introduction cinema camera by Sony as a complete camera to rival the SDLR market that also has 4:4:4 expandability to make an Indie feature film with a starting price of 14K and if fully out fitted with an external 4:4:4 recorder ending up somewhere in the 30-40K range, and because of the internal recording codec (appropriate for proxy) of 4:2:0 people somehow have a perception this camera shoots like a 3-chip video camera. The F3 was never a camera that was said to be an A camera for feature films, but it was said to be a B or C camera to the F35.
COM sensors are going to get even better, and there will always be sensor snubs and those who think they know each sensor in every camera, and the perception of the best will always continue. Each of these single sensor cameras are just tools and in the hands of the right craftsman these tools will create amazing results.
And lets not forget that Sony is among the largest CMOS sensor developer. Funny how Panavision shot themselves in the foot bailing out of a deal with Sony a few years ago, and now Sony has the F65, and IMHO the F65is the best digital camera available.
I wonder who makes Arri's sensor??? Toshiba? I actually don't know, but here is a link to show what makes the Alexa sensor work so well.
BTW Sony purchased Toshiba's sensor division for 646 Million, and Sony was the largest CCD developer and has taken aim to be the largest CMOS developer.
Here is an older link from Sony and what they are up to.
Rather than a viral perception I like a hands on experience and technical knowledge to make a logical choice of what works best for me.