sunyata

It's probably going to do really nice 1080p video.
4k is almost bloody useless if the colours are crap and the dynamic range is poor. 

​I've heard it doesn't have the same dynamic range as what they used to make.

To be fair, I haven't tried their pasta sauce. 

Arri was in the same mess - they made film cameras and lenses.  And now look at them - they adapted and I think are thriving.  Kodak had the first digital camera patent - if they knew what they were doing, they would have be at the forefront of the digital photography movement.  It was their game to lose and they lost big.
So did Sony and Panasonic and Microsoft.
Microsoft was number one for so long, Apple was about to go out of business.  
Then the iphone revolution happened.
And now look at Apple.
It's sad to watch film die, but it was inevitable.  Whatever is cheapest and most convenient always wins. And shooting film for stills - you just don't get that much of an advantage for the cost - film is clearly better, but how much is it worth it?

To be fair, I haven't tried their pasta sauce. 

To be fair, I haven't tried their pasta sauce. 

To be fair, I haven't tried their pasta sauce. 

Interesting link showing some common grading / timing looks, or pitfalls depending on how you look at it. http://www.flicks.co.nz/blog/film-is-a-harsh-mistress/making-the-digital-grade/
 

Interesting link showing some common grading / timing looks, or pitfalls depending on how you look at it. http://www.flicks.co.nz/blog/film-is-a-harsh-mistress/making-the-digital-grade/
 

Interesting link showing some common grading / timing looks, or pitfalls depending on how you look at it. http://www.flicks.co.nz/blog/film-is-a-harsh-mistress/making-the-digital-grade/
 

Interesting link showing some common grading / timing looks, or pitfalls depending on how you look at it. http://www.flicks.co.nz/blog/film-is-a-harsh-mistress/making-the-digital-grade/
 

Currently shooting a Documentary on a mountain rescue team and locations have often been a day or more hike away from electricity with temperatures averaging -8 or 9 dipping to -14 and well into the -20's when factoring in windchill. When it came to testing and pre-produciton tested the Amira and Alexa as well as 2-perf 35mm on the Aaton Penelope, also had my BMCC which i had planned on using as a B-Cam. The BMCC and Arri's needed batteries changed constantly where as with the Penelope the 2 onboard batteries lasted a full 2 days and they still did not even start warning that they are low and even when low they will still shoot at least 800ft of film (2 mags) so practically in keeping the kit as lightweight as possible and not needing to lug block batteries up and over mountains in snow film became a really practical choice, also the batteries are pretty small iPhone with a rugged case size (a really rugged case) but pocketable which also keeps them warm and more juiced between takes during hikes. 

The images from testing even the BMCC all looked wonderful but film had a certain aesthetic that fitted the harsh environment and the snow perfectly and seemed to deal better with extreme highlights when the sun would glare and reflect in the distance of snow or get really bright due to spindrift in the air etc. also the subbtle grain of 50d really added a extra layer of texture to the thing snow flying everywhere infront of the lens and sticking to people and things.

Cost wise the camera package as well as zeiss primes and everything was given to us by the rental house at a absolute steal 1/3rd of the price of the cheapest Alexa package which would have had lesser lenses and then we would have had to factor in needing laptops etc. out in the middle of nowhere to somehow sort and transcode for us with no power so when factoring in this even with lab costs and stock which we got discounted as re-cans from Star Wars Episode VII we have actually come up under the price of a Alexa kit not by 1000s of pounds but enough to make it viable to shoot film obviously we are limited in that we have a certain ammount of stock meaning a much lower shooting ratio but this so far has been a beautiful limitation but it may bite us in the ass in the coming shoots etc. 

TL:DR its not as expensive as you might think, if it works for the benefit of the final image and for a smooth production workflow its worth it, it has a look that suits some things more then digital and vice versa do not discount it. 

Can't wait to snap one of these up on eBay in 5 years

​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it. 

I found this video yesterday and it made me think of this thread. It's kind of related to this subject, especially on the matter of archival and how today's digital footage will hold up in time. And it actually is also wonderful and kinda magical.
Watch it, you're in for a very cool (digital video about lost, and refound film...
 
 

​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it. 

​You make a lot of good points but if you're concerned about the environment as a whole, you also have to consider the amount of carbon produced to keep all the - always on or charging - servers, devices and infrastructure running 247, since that's the macro environment that has made digital viable and also how it will be consumed. As more people come online with broadband, our media consumption has gone through the roof, which takes more servers and more electricity to deliver. I know there's no going backwards, but I just want to emphasize that digital is not clean, you just don't see the pollution when you create it. 

I shot on film for a few years when I started out. I've shot on a variety of video formats for quite a few years. I'd definitely choose to shoot celluloid if I could on my next film. I worked differently on film. It made me think differently about how to approach what I'm doing. I think shooting on digital has taught me heaps of bad habits, to be sloppy, and not value the moments I shoot. 
And that quote from Andrew Wondlan regarding Kodak Vision 2 could be equally applied the progress of HD/4K and the pursuit of more pixels and dynamic range. I don't give a ****. GH4 looks like garbage no matter how many pixels it has, and I have never felt my pulse quicken when I look at it. I remember the first time I saw 4K projected, at a test screening of King Kong in Auckland. it made me feel sick. I feared for the future because I doubted that a beautiful film would ever be made on 4K. Nothing has changed my mind. So yeah, cheer for the democracy of digital. But I'll shed a tear for the beautiful films that made me want to pick up camera in the first place.

The more I think about it the more I think celluloid motion picture film really is an environmental disaster.  Leaving aside the chemicals required to make it, processing it requires huge amounts of a witches brew of toxic chemicals - the bleach contains potassium ferricyanide, potassium bromide,ammonium thiocyanate and various acids.  The developer contains formaldehyde; the fixer ammonium and sulfur compounds.  All of these chemicals are further contaminated with heavy amounts of silver waste washed away from the film during processing.  And loads of clean water have to be consumed at each rinse step.  An 120 minute 35mm film requires at least 36,000 feet of camera negative processed (at a conservative 3:1 shooting ratio).  Back when movies were released on celluloid to theaters it took a staggering 24 million feet of release prints processed (12,000 feet per print times 2,000 theaters) for just one movie!
For digital, you need toxic chemicals to make the storage mediums, but in far smaller amounts; making a tiny memory card consumes just a drop in the bucket compared with the amounts needed to process just two hours of celluloid (12,000 feet of 35mm).  And digital storage mediums can be reused hundreds or even thousands of times, compared with the one-time use of celluloid.
 

Nice explanation, he even weighs in on the HFR debate.
 
 
 
 
 

Nice explanation, he even weighs in on the HFR debate.
 
 
 
 
 

Since mention of the price drop with used F35's, I've been meaning to compare similar shots from 2 different seasons of a show known to switch from the F35 to the Alexa (w/o a heavy grade), finally got around to it... Alexa on the left, F35 on the right. Season one and four are compared (or 4 next to 1).

The color grading was less consistent with season one and these are final, so I'd say take it with a grain of salt. You can download a full size jpeg here to see at 100% actual (cropped). 
 
 

Since mention of the price drop with used F35's, I've been meaning to compare similar shots from 2 different seasons of a show known to switch from the F35 to the Alexa (w/o a heavy grade), finally got around to it... Alexa on the left, F35 on the right. Season one and four are compared (or 4 next to 1).

The color grading was less consistent with season one and these are final, so I'd say take it with a grain of salt. You can download a full size jpeg here to see at 100% actual (cropped).