Policar

It depends what you're after. Burger King is still king if you're after a burger worse than MacDonald's but still sort of edible. I feel that the Alexa is indisputably the best general purpose A camera still, but others surpass it (some far surpass it) in specific respects that might tip one's choice in another direction.

But yeah, there are so many ways the Alexa is ahead of everything else in terms of look, workflow, reliability, and Arri Log's saturation/gamma curves that it's taken a while for anything to catch up and nothing has. That said, remarkably few of its strengths can't be faked cheaply with some ingenuity. Professional tools are largely built on reliability and ease of use, but they also require a larger crew to operate but also need to move faster because time is money. One really talented person with a (good) dSLR can do a lot more than one really talented person with an Alexa or Red IMO. But you'd need to be REALLY talented.  Remember, Mad Max was using 5D Mark IIs. The image quality wasn't great, but the images were.

The F35 is nice, but it's not even in the same league in terms of DR. Good color, though, very very sharp 1080p. The F35 and C300 have the sharpest 1080p, but due to how they interpolate by skipping Bayer. Film competes with the Alexa but not for workflow, it's even harder to use. I've worked with the Alexa regularly since it was released and nothing has yet to convince me I want to work with anything else. But I work in post, and when I shoot personal videos without much money I always choose a smaller camera.

There's this myth that not having the best camera is getting in the way. That's so wrong. The best camera–say, an IMAX camera–gets in the way the most. The worst camera, say a dSLR or a go pro, gets in the way the least, and lets you focus on content. 

So yeah, the Alexa is best still. But if you're seriously thinking of using one, you'll have the money to run tests hopefully to determine if it's best for your needs. The GH4 and C100 get shockingly close for much less money. The A7SII gets WAY better for low light, and with a good grade and an A7SII you could blow away even Alexa owners. Too bad the colors and codec need work.

2 hours ago, Kino said:

Cinema5D uses IMATEST software to determine the "usable" DR from Xyla results, but you don't need that to see what the usable DR is in those C300 II results. You can see it for yourself on those Xyla charts where several bars in the range are useless because they are clipped or have too much noise to be counted as "usable" stops. It's really easy to see and does not make one "the dumbest person." Canon's response to the Cinema5D's assessment of 12 stops was not in the form of a Xyla where you can see noise patterns and clipping effects, but a waveform that they claim demonstrates 15 stops:

Unfortunately for Canon, this waveform actually confirms that the C300II does not have 15 stops usable as the last 3 stops are completely useless. The problem here is that the last few "stops" you are looking at are differentiated by voltage differences that do not rise above the noise floor:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-measured-15-stops-dynamic-range-c300-mark-ii/

Moreover, Canon lists the C300 II's signal-to-noise at 67dB, which translates into 11 stops! That's about as damning as you can get. RED Dragon by contrast is listed at 80dB (which equals 13 stops not 16.5 as RED claims). That's a vast difference.

Who are they useless to? They're there. Why are they useless? I don't understand. They're noisy... I guess. But there's no such metric as "useful" vs "not useful." And in this case, so long as I was okay with a bit of noise noise or I did some NR or I exposed normally and left the shadow sin the shadows, those last three stops would be useful. 

I'm not even posting for your benefit anymore, it's fine for you to use this wrong system because you're using it internally consistently, I'm just posting because there's this myth that's running rampant than those figures are worth a damn. Obviously run your own tests before buying, but before that listen to math and to reason. 

As for the SNR conversion, I couldn't speak to that, but if you're using the same "math" you've used throughout this thread, I wouldn't care to try.

1 hour ago, Kino said:

Hurling insults isn't going to advance your argument, or make you seem particularly logical, composed, and mature. Are you here to debate people in a civil way or to insult them?

We've been through the charts a million times. As I noted before, Xyla tests are up for interpretation and are not scientific. Acceptable levels of noise vary depending on who is undertaking the testing. What Cinema5D is doing is applying IMATEST software to the results to come up with one standard however arbitrary it may be to you or me. Then that standard is applied universally to all cameras so that they can all be compared against one another in an objective way. Moreover, their results are mostly consistent with DR tests from other sources such as the Hurlbut tests I posted above on the 1DC. You are free to believe whatever Sony and Canon state, but that doesn't mean that manufacturer claims are credible or that they can demonstrated through independent tests such as those undertaken by Cinema5D. I for one appreciate independent tests undertaken by industry technicians who provide the evidence to back their results more than baseless claims from a camera company's marketing department.

Here's an "interpretation" of 2+2. It equals 5.

The fact is, you're feeding into idiotic information slavishly. You're either an idiot times two or a troll. Or so self-absorbed that you'd rather support the dumbest argument I've ever read on the internet (and I've read countless youtube comments) than admit you're wrong. 

I'm not hurling personal insults. I'm not saying you're dumb (though the only other conclusion is self-absorbed asshole). Just that what you're writing is either the stupidest thing I've ever read on here or a spot-on impression.

How the fuck is Cinema5D an "industry technician." They're a troll. ASC members, the BBC, etc., and ANY reputable source including Canon defending itself in detail supports their 15 stop claims. How are Canon and Sony's claims "baseless"? They're arrived at through careful tests... such as the tests at Cinema5D that fully support them until they're willfully misinterpreted by a site owner who's a troll. The charts they post COMPLETELY support manufacturer claims until they invent an entirely different metric that's just arbitrary. The images from the tests show 14-15 stops of DR. It's like... how can you deny that? You'd have to invent a whole other system unless you're willfully trolling... Maybe you need more than 14-15 stops and that's fine, but denying what's obviously true is another story than needing the best of the best.

I'm not hurling insults, I'm just saying there are two possibilities: you're either the dumbest person I've ever had the misfortune to communicate with and the most self-absorbed–or you're a parody of that person, a good impersonation of a complete idiot.

Personally, I don't care. I don't shoot video professionally anymore and the stuff I shoot for fun has pretty limited needs. Chivo needs every stop of DR he can get and for him the Alexa provides that and that's great. I didn't need that. If you do and you're a brilliant DP on his level, I respect that, but at that point you should be running your own tests. I have no issue with you and I suppose that since you care so much about this you must be someone whose technical needs are pretty extreme and you're probably a very brilliant shooter. That's fine.

But I see people being willfully moronic on the internet and it upsets my sense of justice. And your arguments are so fucking dumb. You are either the dumbest person I've ever encountered on any forum, or the most self-absorbed. Either way, it's fine, it's up to you, but please don't spread misinformation. If you're not being snide you're being self absorbed and if you're neither of those you're very stupid. Rise above that. The facts are the facts. Beyond that are trolls.

White supremacists shake things up. Flat earthers shake things up. Shaking things up is no victory on its own.

33 minutes ago, Kino said:

No one is stopping you from making completely false comparisons . . .

Misinterpreting or misrepresenting DR numbers from a Xyla chart is far from arguing that the "earth is flat." That's just nonsense! We are talking about a difference of a few stops between manufacturer claims and actual DR performance in terms of "usable" stops.

Besides, Cinema5D is independent of those manufacturers who routinely exaggerate their DR claims, which can be off by 2-3 stops as demonstrated by the C300 II and FS7 Xyla charts above. As for Arri, they generally don't advertise DR numbers for their cameras, even though the Alexa is shown as the best performer in Cinema5D's Xyla tests. I don't think there is any controversy in that at all.

Are you willfully ignorant or actually just really dumb?

Those charts show 14+ stops nearly 15 for the FS7 and 15 for the C300 Mk II. 15+ for the Alexa, the same as their current market reps will claim (fwiw, their claim was always 14+ and 16 is still 14+). Sony claims 14. Canon 15. They aren't exaggerating anything and the charts you linked to prove it. Yes, Arri understates their DR claims, that's been known forever.

There's no controversy. The earth is still round. Cinema5d is still full of shit. You can't just make up a fake metric, define it arbitrarily, and measure manufacturers against that fake metric like it means anything. I mean you can, but it's a huge waste of time and no one should care about it. What's funny is both the FS7 and C300 Mk II charts show what the reps claim, and then Cinema5D just draws a line somewhere random and tries to start a controversy to generate hits (and it's working because people like you take their bullshit seriously). On what sane, intelligent basis do you think Canon or Sony are exaggerating?

9 minutes ago, Kino said:

So I think it's great that Cinema5D causes controversy because that tells me they are doing their job correctly by offending a lot of people who should know better than to believe manufacturer fictions on DR.

No, it's not. It's no better than someone starting a controversy over the earth being flat or something equally dumb. They are repeating inaccurate information and presenting it as fact, that's why they're making people angry. Being "controversial" doesn't always make you right; in this case the controversy is over the fact that they won't stop using a really dumb methodology and offering inaccurate figures.

That said, if you read deeper and actually examine the charts for yourself, you can see that most manufacturer's specs are pretty much spot on, and Arri is performing above spec. So the charts themselves are useful.

No one's stopping you from thinking the earth is flat. Just don't expect others to respect you for it or be impressed by the controversy you've generated.

2 hours ago, Luke Mason said:

The standard is Alexa, they advertised 14 stops and the test proved it. If you must say C300 has more than 12 stops, than Alexa can do 15 or even 16, but ARRI decided on 14 based on years of research and strict standards.

12bit RAW does not increase dynamic range, and it does not make any part of it "more usable". SNR is affected by sensor characteristics and compression, not quantisation.

The last part makes sense to me. I always thought that, though I'm no expert.

Fwiw, a friend just bought an Alexa Mini and his Arri rep confirmed that their latest sensors and firmware can capture 15+ stops, but Arri sticks to 14+ stops for its marketing so as not to confuse things. The original C300 has no more than 12 stops, but the C300 Mk II certainly does, as every proper demonstration as shown:

http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/18/alan-roberts-tests-the-canon-c300-mkii-finds-15-stops-of-dynamic-range-and-says-it-meets-ebu-tier-1-standard-for-hd-and-tier-2-for-4k/

https://joachimhedenworkblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/some-dynamic-range-tests/

The Alexa is still peerless, I'm not saying it isn't. Just that cinema5d is terrible.

Why would the RAW recording have more dynamic range than the raster signal? That isn't the case with most high end cinema cameras. Is the C300 Mk II's pipeline broken in a way the Alexa and C500's isn't (both of them have equal DR in RAW and raster). I have only used the C500 and Alexa and would be upset to learn Canon screwed up their new camera.

Why does Cinema5D choose to willfully misinterpret the xyla chart? The C300 Mk II has visibly and substantially more DR, perhaps a stop, than the Sony and both have about what is advertised (14 and 15 stops, respectively), whereas the Alexa surpasses 15 stops, which is about right. This whole thing is just beyond me. It seems so simple but there are all these complications that I don't understand. All three read as having great DR.

Looking at more of their tests, they give the 5D Mark III better DR than the C300, which is very far off base, simply because the codec smudges the noise. The C300 has way more DR. Their measurements are completely inconsistent, but I suppose I just don't understand how they differentiate between "usable" and "actual."

I try not to worry about this stuff, but it still confuses me.

All of that's over my head. I still think Trick Shot looks like garbage.

7 hours ago, Nikkor said:

But Red Weapon users are very few in number and the market for medium format is very large in comparison (much larger than leica R). The prices will go up when there is the 5D equivalent of medium format (When the D3 came out, many lenses sky rocket, the 28 1.4 for example, because nikon had a poor new fullframe lens lineup).

I agree. Larger formats are getting more and more popular and the larger the format the more "character" lenses actually look better than contemporary ones. First it was all the Nikkors, superspeeds, panchros, next anamorphic, etc. An affordable 645 let alone 6x7 sensor is a ways away but I think when it's available V mount lenses will be a hot commodity.

Medium format speed boosters are dumb IMO but that will contribute as well.

4 minutes ago, DBounce said:

What exactly does it matter what the DR is of a dedicated video camera when compared to a hybrid? C300, FS7 etc... are all permit cameras. Try taking one into your local neighborhood coffee shop to shoot a quick interview or scene and see how quickly you are ejected. Hybrid = stealth. That's kinda the point. 

Not all of us are trying to make spy videos of our neighborhood coffee shop.

4 hours ago, Kino said:

No need to argue with me about the virtues of the C300 II, as it is one of my dream cameras. I just wish the price were about $5-6K lower so that I could justify such a purchase. At $10K, it would be very much worth it.

Now the only "inaccurate narrative" is found in Canon's claims about the C300 II's 15-stop DR, which would place it beyond the Alexa! Cinema5d's Xyla test of the C300 II shows only 12 stops of DR. The FS7 was also found to have lower DR than Sony's claims of 14 stops:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/

With the C300 II's internal 10 bit and external 12 bit RAW output, however, you should be able to recover much more of its highlights and shadows than the 1DC, so perhaps we could say that the C300 is a 14-stop camera with RAW recovery. There is no debating that at 2X the price ($16K) it is a better cinema camera than the 1DC and that it produces stunning results. Just because the 1DC can reach similar DR numbers as the FS7, C300 and C500 in a latitude test does not mean they are equal in other ways as I have stated. The same could be said for the A7SII DR, which comes in at just below 12 stops, but which has the worst codec of the bunch:

https://***URL not allowed***/ultimate-sony-a7s-ii-vs-a7s-test-difference/

Cinema5D's testing methodology is a joke. Every reputable source has rated the C300 Mk II as 14-15 stops in Canon Log 2 but with the caveat of noisy shadows. Apples-to-inaccurate-apples, what's that site's rating on the 1DC? I'd guess 10-11 stops. What's their rating of the C300 (a legit 12)? Or the 5D (8-9)? I'm guessing something inaccurate. Granted, the Alexa's current generation sensor and firmware has well surpassed 15 stops and Arri reps will privately confirm it, so the Alexa does have better DR and cleaner shadows than anything else. A friend just picked the Alexa Mini over the C300 Mk II and his DR tests just blow my mind. I dropped out of my math major so all the bits and stuff don't really mean anything to me, just not my strength. What does 14 stop with RAW recovery mean? How does a RAW recovery relate to a stop of DR? I never studied image formats.

Accurate comparisons of the C300 Mk II and Alexa show that the Alexa has a worse SNR in the highlights, slightly better in the mids, and far better in the shadows, but that despite very noisy shadows relative to the Alexa, the C300 Mk II (which is also far far cleaner at high ISOs than the Alexa, a common trade off) technically captures nearly as wide a spread of information. It's just not as pretty in the shadows, much more noise there. But a properly exposed image wouldn't emphasize this part of the curve in either camera, so the difference in noise would be minor, but the detail still present in most properly shot and graded material.

Of course, you're right, this is all irrelevant because what matters are your given needs. If you find noise in the shadows (even if there's still detail there) loathsome like the above test does, then you'd make the same subjective call, but call it what it is–subjective. But his cut off point is totally arbitrary and the test is pretty meaningless. Fwiw, the A7S (haven't used the A7SII) does have great DR (but also not up to Sony's claim of 15.3 stops or whatever), while the the F5 (haven't used the FS7, but same sensor) I remember having more than the C300, Red Epic, or any dSLR. Sony's 14 stop claims on its cinema line are fairly accurate, it's just a shame the image doesn't look better than it does. But then again, that's also a subjective call.

I also think dynamic range needs are overrated on lower end productions, and that the above video looks awful, but that's another story. 

1 hour ago, Kino said:

That's not a very good test as the 1DC in that comparison was shot with a different framing that placed more sunlight into the background relative to the other cameras. They should all have the same framing. Despite this problem, you can see that the overexposure of the building looks equal on the 1DC and C500 frame grabs.

Now the "cinema cameras" I was thinking of are those in the 1DC's general price range such as the FS7 and C300. But, in any case, different tests will produce different results, especially when we have no idea what the exact settings were on each camera. Here is an actual side-by-side video that shows a very good performance for the 1DC in terms of its DR when compared to cinema cameras including the C500:

It's also important to note that the C500 has an expanded DR in HD 12 Bit RGB 4:4:4 relative to what it achieves in 4K 10 bit RAW, where its latitude is reduced. In the HD mode, it is a very impressive camera indeed. In 4K, however, the C500 has a reduced DR of around 12 stops, which is roughly equivalent to the FS7 and the C300 II:

https://***URL not allowed***/canon-c300-mark-ii-review-dynamic-range/

The 1DC itself was measured at 12.5 stops by Hurlbut, who has tested both the C500 and the 1DC very extensively:

http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-education-online-the-next-gen-in-digital-film-capture-canons-4k-1dc/

His exposure and latitude tests for the 1DC and C500 are available on his channel. Here are just a few examples:

 

 

 

 

In both overexposure tests, you can see that the C500 and the 1DC will go about 3 stops over before they clip in a way that is unrecoverable, unlike the Alexa which can go much further. Based on Hurlbut's tests, I would say that the 1DC indeed "rivals" the C500 when it comes to DR but not in any other way as a proper cinema camera.

Your claim that the 1DC and C300 Mk II have equal DR makes your posting history seem specious. Talk about picking and choosing methodologies to forward an inaccurate narrative. The C300 Mk III kills in DR when measured properly.

That said, there are so many awesome options now. It really does boil down to individual need. Or whether you can afford an Alexa or not.

13 hours ago, funkyou86 said:

Thanks for your reply! Have you tried it or what experience do you have with it? 

It's the same price range as a FOTGA DP3000 so I'm not sure with which one should I go. Your opinions are now very welcome! Thank you!

I've only tried the Fotga DP 500 II S. It seemed to work similarly well to high end compact units (Arri and O'Connor) for most lenses, very little backlash and and no play. But it fell apart a bit over time. For the price I think it's about as good as you'll get. I haven't tried the cheaper one. I recently switched to the DJI Wireless Focus, so haven't used anything too new.

We used a P+S disposable film camera like you get at the pharmacy then shot 16mm Tri-X (b&w) to focus on composition. Not sure if it worked or not.

On September 14, 2015 at 0:16 PM, Teemu said:

Fotga DP 500 II S. One of the best CHEAP FF units I have used. And have heard from many places that "if you are in need of cheap one, buy Fotga".

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0z6euUeiVXA

 

Surprisingly good, yeah. Not the best build quality, won't last, but while it does it's surprisingly good.

Super inventive, but I think any lenses with a floating element will suffer at close focus as the floating element won't move in this configuration. And the quality of the AF is yet to be determined.

Still... could be really cool for the right person if it works well.

I have a used AT4073a I'll sell cheap. Personally I prefer my 416 and don't find the AT to be less "unforgiving" but it's super good for the money, in the same league just very directional and hot (also can be a good thing). It's so hot it can help with bad preamps, too.

Look into the F8. That seems to be where it's at if you can't afford SD/Zaxcom. I wouldn't consider anything else at that price point.

A Walmart spot costs about $1 million. They can afford anamorphic. 

This is interesting. I dismissed 4k because when I watch a 2k DCP it looks fine. I saw Captain America on the best screen in America (no, really) and even up close it looked fine at "Alexa fake 4k" or whatever the majority of their cameras were shooting. But this proves there's an actual interest for the format, and for the wide shots it seems to matter. It's funny hearing people moan about their smartphone or Canon dSLR lacking 4k when the Revenant, for instance, was 60% upscaled from something less. And if you want that resolution, the Sony 6300 provides it now.

But this proves there's a demand even at the high end. A huge demand. I am considering holding off on buying an 80D and waiting for a 5D Mark IV. I mean I'll probably buy neither, my SL1 is fine.

The iMac is really capable. I find my 2013 rMBP a lot faster than the old Mac Pro towers (just less RAM) and the top of the line iMac is a lot faster than that and pretty close to the trash can. The 5k screen is nice if you shoot 4k; I don't. But I'd get a color correction monitor, too, as it has gamma weirdness that needs to be accounted for if you're going to broadcast. For web use it's fine, just watch your preview LUT settings in Resolve. For my needs (After Effects, Final Cut, Photoshop occasional basic 3D) I don't find the difference in price worth the slight difference in performance. For really heavy 3D... well, I'd just use a PC.

Definitely a big fan of the iMacs from a price/performance standpoint. Even if I cut 20% off my slowest renders, I can do those overnight so it's not a big issue and I've never been slowed down in a really significant way. The iMac is a better user experience and value, I find the returns diminish quickly with the current Mac Pro, which needs an update, but is still faster for some tasks. That said, I'll often work on multiple machines at once.

Both will completely blow away your tower for speed, no comparison, night and day.

My next computer will probably be another rMBP, if they allow 32GB RAM then sure, but it seems Apple is taking a more consumer-oriented direction.

8 hours ago, Cinegain said:

Canon has a f/1.8... it probably will match the other Canon glass the most and provide fair AF capability. Price is nice. Sigma has one too btw (pre-Art)... but at roughly the same cost I would probably go for the Tamron with IS. Of course the Zhongyi/ZY Optics Mitakon might be the most fun... but flawed/with character. Definitely something else... and f/1.2. Look it up. Might be cool for some dreamy and playful shots.

Yeah I don't see the problem with the Canon unless you hate a bit of CA or really need a slightly better focus ring. The 6D is basically between 720p and 480p, wide open resolution is pretty much not that big an issue and video isn't for AF, either, but the focus ring could be. I dunno, it seems really nice to me.

46 minutes ago, User said:

Why, does After Effects not see anything above 100 IRE?

In my experience it sees it in float mode but not 8 bit or 16 bit. But float mode is quirky. Something to do with YUV to RGB conversion. Not sure. Not important if you're not using it, either.

7 hours ago, User said:

I'm about to start the process of transcoding the C100 MkII AVCHD material using 5DtoRGB. My settings will be:
ProRes 4.2.2
Rec709
Full Range
No Post Processing. Gamma 1.0

The C100 MkII material was shot in WDR picture profile so it won't be as 'flat' as C-log. As such, do you still recommend 'Full Range?' Like you said earlier, after transcoding, the material can still be tweaked to broadcast norms. Correct?

Cooling fans about to kick in...

Based on your above example, I got it backwards. I'd go with whatever pushes down the super whites so you can keep them when you go to After Effects etc.

Unless you're flying an Alexa Mini and need that last bit of highlight detail (like in the Revenant or something) I think you'd be foolish not to go with the X5R. The smaller platform is more stable. Lots of price/performance there, too–I expect the image to be competitive with anything up to and included the Dragon–but with less flexibility in terms of lens changes. But if you need to buy a new A camera, too, and are already getting a Ronin MX for it, then maybe it becomes less obvious a choice.

Also, the Osmo and Z axis would be amazing.

Whether they can or not, they won't. A lot of people are still really happy with their current Canon equipment because they care less about image quality and have lower end needs. I've had my C100 since it was released and all I wish it did better was highlight dynamic range and internal codec.

Most of the people I work with are low end users ($600-$1000/day, low six figure/year) so for them the extra cost of higher end storage isn't worth it. Editing in 4k is a LOT more expensive than 2k. For higher end users, I think most people I know go for an Alexa and attempt to raise their rate accordingly, but I get the frustration with camera size and battery life. An Alexa Mini that required less rigging and was actually affordable would be everyone's dream (though I suppose I only need 2k, whereas you'd want 4k+, but its internal 4k upscale isn't terrible).

Unfortunately your needs exceed those of most and the market bears what it bears. We're dragging you down, sorry. I would just up your rate and try to afford an Alexa Mini.

2 hours ago, AaronChicago said:

I know here it's around $650 minimum day rate for SAG actors. 

You'd be surprised how low it is under Modified and Ultra Low Budget contracts. I've worked with a group of pretty big names making under $200/day on a feature produced by an A-lister under Modified low budget. Ultra Low Budget you can get away with deferred pay (no pay).

And how high it is for ads ($50k+/day for background including residuals on major spots).

There's also always non-union. Most non union actors will work for a couple hundred dollars a day to have something for their reel.