Laurier

Yet you still hear people complain about the Alexa green cast, the Red yellow wash and the pinkish skin from canon colours.
Put a Zeiss lens you get a blue cast, put a canon or a Cooke you get yellow, but a sigma you loose some red/yellow ect...
Shoot on film, you get several colour cast depending which lab is going to develop .
If the image is striking , no one is complaining about the sky being the wrong shade of blue.
Once you cut through the marketing BS and learn how to use a grading suite, none of that matter.

Yet you still hear people complain about the Alexa green cast, the Red yellow wash and the pinkish skin from canon colours.
Put a Zeiss lens you get a blue cast, put a canon or a Cooke you get yellow, but a sigma you loose some red/yellow ect...
Shoot on film, you get several colour cast depending which lab is going to develop .
If the image is striking , no one is complaining about the sky being the wrong shade of blue.
Once you cut through the marketing BS and learn how to use a grading suite, none of that matter.

Yet you still hear people complain about the Alexa green cast, the Red yellow wash and the pinkish skin from canon colours.
Put a Zeiss lens you get a blue cast, put a canon or a Cooke you get yellow, but a sigma you loose some red/yellow ect...
Shoot on film, you get several colour cast depending which lab is going to develop .
If the image is striking , no one is complaining about the sky being the wrong shade of blue.
Once you cut through the marketing BS and learn how to use a grading suite, none of that matter.

I m a bit sceptical too, the DR is lower than the G2 and unless you shoot landscapes, who need that much resolution ? I spent two weeks softening models skins recently with footage from the 4.6k and that already too much if you use modern glass ( They are selling their new colour science with models with flawless skins, it s  nice but that not the norm )
 
I was more expecting a Phantom camera competitor, with that amount of data, they could have done a 1000fps 4k camera with no crop .

I m a bit sceptical too, the DR is lower than the G2 and unless you shoot landscapes, who need that much resolution ? I spent two weeks softening models skins recently with footage from the 4.6k and that already too much if you use modern glass ( They are selling their new colour science with models with flawless skins, it s  nice but that not the norm )
 
I was more expecting a Phantom camera competitor, with that amount of data, they could have done a 1000fps 4k camera with no crop .

From what he said, I think it s probably a quad bayer .

In resolve, with modern Sigma lenses, assuming the shoot is correctly exposed, start by reducing the contrast ( probably by around 20%) , then use a bit of color boost to compensate the lost of color contrast ( also Sigma lenses tend to render skins a bit pale by default) , then lower the shadow only to get proper blacks.
You should get a more pleasing look, less harsh on the skin.

Filters make the bokeh dirty, usually add nasty flare, that not really desirable, and everything they do can be done in Resolve quite easily.
The bokeh , natural looking flares and complex distortions are really the only thing you cannot recreate in post easily.
The issues I have with vintage lenses is that a lot of them have a strong color cast and poor color separation that make them look muddy. ( I have tested a lot of different sets/brands, only the Contax Zeiss don t suffer too much from it)
Vintage wide angles ( usually from 25mm ) also tend to have very large amount of chromatic aberration and I find that often problematic.
Overall I like using the 35mm to 85mm for fashion work and full sets for black and white work, and I usually go for Russian glass wide open, as they have the most extreme bokeh.
But a sigma 18-35 with some distortion + vignetting + exponential glow + a film stock emulation will give you a nice vintage look if you want it, without all the issues of using vintage glass. ( and with much better colors )
 

Most cine camera are still EF or PL, beside there are no affordable and relatively compact cine primes made for super 35 on the market in those mounts.
Yes there is Rokinon for EF but the built quality is terrible. ( the barrels get loose and you cant tighten them up because they are plastic.)
Still lenses have terrible throw in the 24mm and wider focals, and are usually 2.8 
I quite interested by a set that finally have a relatively fast and affordable 18mm .

Not really, Arri never lied about their sensor, they still lead technological developments, from light, to lenses, to camera, to gimbals.
I m a blackmagic user (ursa mini G2), but it took almost 10 years for other companies to do something almost as good as Arri.
I don t think they are overrated, they are just not accessible to the mass. 

I think I read that the Ursa mini 4.6/pro/G2 use the same approach but with two 11 bits signals rather than 14 from the Alexa, but I m no expert.
I would not be surprised if the power consumption/heat is greater, or if the cost of the sensor is not higher.
 
But modern Dual gain architecture is something different if I understand it properly, it was developed by a third party company, and they licence the technology to sensor manufacturer and I think it s both a software and a hardware thing, it I think it map the dynamic range in a different way, you loose in the highlight but gain in the shadows. I think the sensor only do a single readout with this technology.

I found that video not very impressive to sell a 10k camera , it could have been shoot a A7iii, the colors and the DR look very similar from what I got from the A7iii I had.

Since I switched to a ursa G2 I realized that sony not only have issue with colors, but also with contrast, the skin color range have a lot more of contrast on sony camera, that create a harsh impression of sharpness and make the structures of the facial features more visible, that rarely faltering to anyone.
I get the trend/push for full frame, I like the look, but in restricted professional use it is more of an issue than a bonus, It s much harder to keep things in focus, you need to close more your aperture, so then you either need more light or push your iso....the autofocus will help in some case but still, when it jump focus your take is ruined, I found a subject going slightly in and out of focus less disturbing than a jumpy autofocus.
I find those mid-range full frame pro camera odd, for super high end production why not ( but then you go for a venice/C700/Alexa LF) but for a small crew I have more doubts.
 

I find the price reasonable for what you get.

I find the price reasonable for what you get.

I find the price reasonable for what you get.

Yes but Arri is also renting equipement itself to large productions, They are able to offer complete seamless solutions.
Red is selling luxury marketing, including David Fincher who they sponsor .

Nothing wrong with that, it s a business after all, but I feel red is in a awkward position now,  I think that netflix trend with red is going to fade now that Arri have the LF and the LF mini, those camera are still very recent and that article don t reflect that.

Canon and sony have a more define cine/broadcast department that I believe is profitable overall ( I see FS7 and C300 everywhere) Panasonic is more blurry with that I find.
Blackmagic are outputting cinema gear at consumer price and also sell a full post production system to go with it, I think their approach is different , people buy because it s cheap and they are willing to try the product, so whether the client is satisfied or not they still make sales. 

Well yeah, they are slowly getting in trouble, they are partnering with foxcon to bring cheaper 8k camera, that a sign that they can t keep up with the market.
Almost everything that made RED special can now be find in competitors products for a much cheaper price.

Arri have a complete ecosystem of products, from camera to lenses, to follow focus, to stabilizer, to crane, to light ect. Everything they manufacture is made to endure, that a very different approach from a lot of other manufacturer, and that what high level production are paying for as well.

I agree. There are a lot of new mounts and high end options out there, but the market overall seems to be shrinking quickly. I'm sure these companies have done their research and are moving upmarket for that specific reason, but I wonder for how long that's sustainable, and if there's already too much competition in a small market. Personally (despite owning lots of adapted Nikon manual focus lenses for EF-mount cameras) I buy into a system for the lenses, because then their cost is amortized over a longer period and I'm not constantly buying and reselling. It's hard for me to imagine what the L mount system or RF mount system looks like five years from now, though, which makes the steep entry price even more of a concern for me.
On the other hand, I would probably upgrade my Digital Rebel XT if Canon met Fujifilm's specs.
Well said. I bought Oakleys back in school and ended up looking like a dork. I think Bay and Fincher are great directors, but I look better in Ray Bans or Persol. (Same parent company in this case, I know.) I guess I will never be a cool kid. I couldn't afford a Red anyway.

Yes but Arri is also renting equipement itself to large productions, They are able to offer complete seamless solutions.
Red is selling luxury marketing, including David Fincher who they sponsor .

Nothing wrong with that, it s a business after all, but I feel red is in a awkward position now,  I think that netflix trend with red is going to fade now that Arri have the LF and the LF mini, those camera are still very recent and that article don t reflect that.

Canon and sony have a more define cine/broadcast department that I believe is profitable overall ( I see FS7 and C300 everywhere) Panasonic is more blurry with that I find.
Blackmagic are outputting cinema gear at consumer price and also sell a full post production system to go with it, I think their approach is different , people buy because it s cheap and they are willing to try the product, so whether the client is satisfied or not they still make sales. 

Yes but Arri is also renting equipement itself to large productions, They are able to offer complete seamless solutions.
Red is selling luxury marketing, including David Fincher who they sponsor .

Nothing wrong with that, it s a business after all, but I feel red is in a awkward position now,  I think that netflix trend with red is going to fade now that Arri have the LF and the LF mini, those camera are still very recent and that article don t reflect that.

Canon and sony have a more define cine/broadcast department that I believe is profitable overall ( I see FS7 and C300 everywhere) Panasonic is more blurry with that I find.
Blackmagic are outputting cinema gear at consumer price and also sell a full post production system to go with it, I think their approach is different , people buy because it s cheap and they are willing to try the product, so whether the client is satisfied or not they still make sales. 

Interesting post on RedUser today:
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?176501-New-article-The-Cameras-Behind-Netflix-Best-Series-Spoiler-RED-Dominates&p=1856294&viewfull=1#post1856294
This seems like a more sensical and honest marketing tactic than Red had for the Red One. The David Finchers of the world are exactly who want to use this camera system, and its ergonomics and ecosystem demand the same resources (if not more) than you'd want for an Amira shoot, so it's hardly entry-level.
(The David Finchers of the world are sort of the opposite of the Werner Herzogs.... this metaphor makes sense to me but probably not to anyone else.)
This is a major departure from Red's original (questionable) pitch for an "affordable" cinema camera for everyone. Red's new high end systems are about as expensive as Arri's. The Raven, meanwhile, seems to have disappeared and the 3k for $3k camera never materialized, and probably never should have. What was the market for that? I'm curious to see if the Foxconn thing ever materializes and in what form. It seems the high end is where the money is still. Despite everything. Also, Red is privately owned by a billionaire so it could still be unprofitable for all we know.
Another issue with the sub-$10k camera market is that you have a lower level of production that's using it, and so footage shot with those cameras doesn't look as good as it could for that reason (the original Red suffered from this, too). And how big is this market in the first place and how high are the margins?
I'm curious how profitable Canon's, Sony's, and Panasonic's cinema divisions are. Ditto Black Magic. They've cornered a market segment between dSLRs and Alexas that Red seems to be in a rush to abdicate, and there is likely a reason for that. (Selfishly, I hope these cameras stay around because I like them.)
Someone posted a teaser months back showing an EVA1-style body that was hinted at during NAB, so this probably has that form factor... more or less... 
I love the EVA1 and Varicam's color and noise texture–my second favorite image to the Alexa, bar none. Curious if this is positioned above the EVA1 (which is already processing 6k fwiw) or below it and if it maintains that "look" I like, sort of a C300 Mk 1 look with really rich colors.
Edit: bar film, I guess. 

That image is a fake. 

If you want something sharp I will go zeiss I think, the russian 28mm is slow , and I did not try the FD.

in video mode with extraction for 2.39, I quickly tested in photo mode and I should also be able to extract 2.39 from it .

Basically the cinelux cover up to 42.5mm for 35mm, 4 perf anamorphic ( that a larger area than most super 35mm sensors), once you add a single focus solution in from you mostly cover up to 45mm .

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools/depth-of-field-and-equivalent-lens-calculator/#{"c":[{"av":"2","fl":42.5,"d":3048,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}

I did a data input there so you can see the equivalency per format.

That still theoretical as the lens design of the taking prime influence the values as well, but that a good ballpark.

I don t think that true, I can go 55mm with a cinelux 2x + rectilux on full frame .

You should be able to use a 28mm if you don t use a speedbooster.