Django

Damn.. first Nokishita shutting down last month, now Canon Rumors?! WTF Site will be missed, wether you like/hate Canon, one must recognise it was one of the most reliable rumour sites out there. I don’t know anything about the fanboy wars going on social media etc but going after his wife & kids?! That’s plain fucked up and beyond wack. The online hate for Canon is strong as ever but cmon don’t shoot the messenger!

The Alexa65 is a Large Format (65mm) that uses ALEV 3 A3X sensor & the Alexa LF is a FF size sensor using A2X version. So actually different sensors and different lens systems that take advantage of the extra resolution & resolving power. The new Alexa 4K S35 camera needs to keep the key attributes of the current industry-standard model which means large photosite count, high dynamic range, low rolling-shutter etc. All these leading factors might contribute to the choice of a 4K sensor over 6/8K. So it's not so much a resolution statement imo but rather a focus on maintaining their in-class leadership position in sensor image specs. Let's also not forget ARRI's main clients are for theatre projection films of which the majority are still 2K. Alexa65 was also developed with IMAX & 3D in mind which use up to dual 4K laser projectors. Getting back to Netflix and other streaming services, they're resolution requirements are there to also ensure future-proofing of their content displayed on TV/computer screens. Different mediums, different requirements, different sensor resolutions.

Z9 sounds great.. if you can afford it.. own Nikon glass.. and manage to get a hold of one before hell freezes over! The best thing about RF mount.. is adapting EF glass lol. Added benefit if you use the Vari-ND adapter or speed booster on C70. Also 10-bit codec & 8K RAW plays very nice in Resolve on M1 Macs. That said I totally get feeling burned with Canon, especially R5. I do own an R6 that also technically overheats but I manage to work around it and it cost me less than half an R5. It was always a stopgap and now thinking of replacing it with R5C & maybe C70 down the line. My other main system is Sony but none of the latest alpha/FX cameras interest me at all enough to upgrade.

Do you even read the articles that you link to? Messerschmidt: We shot 6K 2:1 with a 5K center extraction. This method gave us tremendous freedom in post for stabilization and re-framing when necessary. The editors work with a lot of split screens, so having the extra room to reframe and adjust in the cut is very helpful in that process. also: In addition to giving Fincher another crack at getting the exact composition he wants, it allows for the elimination of imperfections in the operating of the camera. “If you are shooting an actor sitting up from a chair and the operator tilts up with him, you might do 10 takes of that and the operator might keep the headroom perfect for six of them, but if they chose for editorial a take where the operator clips the headroom it can be fixed in post,” said Messerschmidt. “Same thing for stabilization – rolling on a slightly bumpy floor or doing a crane move where the crane has a little wiggle in it or whatever, being able to take that out in post very much informs David’s aesthetic. It lets the show maintain that very ethereal, almost robotic look, letting the camera be anonymous in the storytelling process.” I was speaking of your average Joe, not necessarily you. Here you go again pitting one against the other. In your b&w mind one is either pro something or against the other. You cannot seem to fathom a person can value multiple aspects of IQ. Filmmaking is more complex than just resolution & color science you know. It’s not just one or the other. I shoot all types of resolutions, it depends on the project and the budget. I shoot all kinds of brands/codecs/sensor sizes etc. Whatever I feel fits the project. That how pros think and work. Enthusiasts come up with these dead-end theories and tend to clinch to one side. You seem quite obessesed with color science, especially from ARRI. You keep claiming nothing has improved in that department in over a decade “none” “zero”. Sorry but that’s just plain incorrect, you musn’t have been following much. Canon/Sony/BM keep updating their CS. Canon offers you classic eos cinema color matrix or neutral which is ARRI inspired. Sony has had Venice’s S-Cinetone trickle down to FX/Alpha range. BM are on Gen5 of their CS. Furthermore, the biggest improvement relative to CS in recent mirrorless tech is 10-bit Log & RAW. These types of codecs finally allow footage shot on hybrids to get proper color grading treatments, and potentially compete/match with big boy ARRI/RED footage. If your complaining about CS in 2022 on a latest gen Canon/Sony/Nikon/Panny/BMD you perhaps should start taking a look at your grading skills.

Well ARRI already have the 4.5K LF & the 6K Alexa65. So to me that statement was already made a while ago. Well technically they all needed to be above 4K as their Netflix original content minimum requirements. This is why so many Netflix DPs dropped the Alexa for RED/Venice. Changed the whole game. There are real benefits to higher resolution too. Now wether or not this matters to you the end user watching a show on your 7" iPad is a different story. You're always trying to pigeonhole people in two categories it seems. Very black & white logic. Higher resolution is simply an inevitable reality. Tech moves forward. So do requirements. That doesn't mean you are directly concerned or that non +4K footage has become obsolete. Cinema is still 2K, terrestrial FHD and everything goes on the internet..

Tough crowd to please that's for sure! I think some of us need to just recognize we’re a diverse group of people here with different requirements/priorities and invested in different camera systems. If creativity is in limitations, fine. But then let's not complain about lack of IBIS. When there's a will there's a way right? Bottom line is that pros get the job done, with the best tools they can afford. It’s often more enthusiast that obsess with comparing specs, charts, pixel peeping footage etc. If anything 10-bit 4:2:2 & RAW allow much greater creativity in post. I never see those codecs as crutches for poor exposure or WB. 8K nobody is forcing it on you. Camera also does 6K/4K/3K. It can certainly have its uses though, from cropping, reframing to extracting stills. Does that make one lazy? I don’t think so, just opens up more alleys in post.

@kye sorry but that really sounds like armchair reasoning. cinematographers don't talk about specs? yeah right. nothing more technical than cinema. let's not place everyone in boxes with gross over generalisations that all videographers are spec-only oriented money driven shooters of clinical modern looking content. commercial videography / advertising is also about storytelling. the "look" and "aesthetic" can be extremely important. You rarely get into "specs" with the client. wedding, music videos & fashion are also very popular videography domains that emphasise emotion/mood/look aesthetic priorities. now of course a talking head office interview isn't going to absolutely require a Cooke anamorphic on an Alexa65, but depending on budget/project, cinema DP's are often hired. Even for a silly beer commercial:

I sense BS.. rumour comes from canon watch and states: We got a rumor from an unknown source. We report it as it is out of duty. Please take it with a grain of salt.

Ironically almost none of those examples were shot on ARRI cameras: Sabrina - RED Helium Sex Education - Sony Venice Witcher - RED Monstro / Alexa LF Squid Game - RED Monstro Bridgerton - Sony Venice The Crown - Sony Venice Mindhunter - RED Helium All high above 4K resolution cameras. So perhaps we can conclude 6K/8K high resolution capture does not necessarily equate to over sharp/clean footage. And that great IQ results can be achieved outside of the ARRI CS realm. Maybe the key to that million-dollar budget Netflix show aesthetics evoked here isn't about ARRI color science at all but rather the incredible top budget cine glass from Cooke, Zeiss, Panavision, Arri, Leica, Angenieux etc. Without even getting into staging/lighting and post/grading skills. Just some food for thought..

Lol... and what other hybrid camera's CS better competes with the $36K Alexa Mini or $150,000 Alexa 65? You have to be somewhat realistic in your expectations. I also feel your judgement is clouded by comparing Canon footage shot with a kit lens and a quick grade vs Hollywood movie shot on $30K cine primes and professionally graded by a pro colorist. When you take the same lens and apply a simple primary grade the difference isn't as big as you may think. This actually means a lot coming from an actual ARRI Alexa owner. Sorry, but that's such a backwards way of looking at things.

I'm talking original content which is what the requirements are for. Netflix obviously licences film/shows from various sources/eras (and hence resolution) but that's just licensing, you'll notice a certain film/director/studio will appear/disappear on Netflix. For their original content, they have high resolution requirements that force push many DP's to drop the almighty Alexa in favour of RED/Sony/Alexa LF/65 etc. This is certainly because of their partnerships with TV manufacturers (that can only push higher res if there is higher res content) but also for future proofing they're content. One could argue about the politics of that, but I do believe its pushing things forward vs terrestrial TV that is still FHD or even cine 2K. Anyways, here is the link I posted previously: https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-netflix-original-films-series/ It's from 2019 but obviously applies itself even more today (ex: Squid Game captured in 8K Redcode Raw on Monstro) Yes, I remember that vid you posted elsewhere and the same polarising thoughts back then can certainly be transposed to todays 4K vs 6K/8K debate. That is a Hollywood perspective though. I can tell you my VFX unit are crying when I try and push them 6K/8K. Simply because we're on certain budgets/deadlines that can't always afford the rendering times of such high resolutions. Other VFX units/projects will embrace it. There is no general consensus other than project specific requirements on a pro level. What is this so-called aesthetic catastrophe exactly? 10-bit log & RAW is for sure a great evolution for the aesthetic conscious minded videographer. To quote Andrew I don't miss compressed 8-bit 1080p Rec709 line-skipped days. Photographers have had +12-bit RAW forever even in entry-level cameras. It took forever to get there in affordable hybrids. Same with AF & resolution. Stabilisation? Apparently some people now can't live without IBIS. I understand them too. I love IBIS. Then again no cine cam has IBIS. It's always give or take but one can't really hate on tech development..

To each their own. I'm not trying to win an Oscar with an R5C. Zoom/Crop/Panning will have real-use benefits on commercial projects (real-estate, sports, product, interviews etc). It's really the same kinda benefits 4K gave us in early 201x vs FHD. At first people we're complaining about the exact same things (too much skin tone detail, too big file sizes etc). Now look it's the norm. Same in photography with the MP race. I'm not super pro high-res either by the way but there are definitely some pros..

Right but don't take as a resolution example that re-graded screenshot from a 4K graded compressed YT image. The crop and grading possibilities from actual RAW 8K footage is on a complete other level! Again those are just screenshots from a 4K YT video.. wasn't really trying to make an argument for 8K there, just a regrade for fun.. Netflix is where it's moving tech wise and their requirements are +4K with most popular shows/films shot on RED (Monstro/Helium/Weapon) 8K, Venice 6K & Alexa 65. Hollywood cinema has much lower requirements as the majority of theatres still use 2K projection hence Alexa's long withstanding popularity.

Maybe I'm alone here but I totally embrace 8K. Can think of quite a few practical uses for it. If you don't need it you always got oversampled 6K/4K. That 8K50p RAW is something else. I've been working with (R5) 8K RAW footage recently and I'm loving it. It's that same effect of going 4K from FHD. It can't be unseen (even though I'm on a 5K monitor) and now regular non-oversampled 4K almost feels too soft. The really nice thing about R5C is you can jump from 8K/6K/4K/3K in all codecs with FF/S35/S16 crop factors. That just gives you so many options. Slashcam article also reveals 4K60p is no longer line skipping and 4K120p also takes a leap forward in IQ. I'm really starting to warm up to this camera, I was all set on C70 but I'm sort of GASing harder for R5C now. Couple grades from that video just for fun.. (model deserved better)

Z9 refresh rate is 60fps and drops to 30fps in certain modes where the A1 has constant 120fps. Yes there's been reports of banding/strobing under LED lighting which can be very problematic for sport shooters (the main target!): The Z9 features a fully-electronic shutter, rather than a mechanical or hybrid shutter. I know you’ve had some issues with the dreaded ‘LED banding’ on advertising screens – can you talk me through it? To date, I’ve shot about ten professional jobs with the Z9, covering four different sports, indoors and outdoors, and it’s been an issue – I won’t call it a problem, as such – in about half of the places I’ve been to. (...) Is there a fix? Maybe. Canon’s EOS R3 has a feature that attempts to measure this high-frequency flicker, then fine-tunes its shutter speed to one that will minimize the flicker effect. We’ve not yet tried it with an LED signage board that makes up only a small part of the image, but a similar approach is probably Nikon's best hope if it decides to address the problem. https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/8897575261/interview-sports-photographer-mark-pain-on-the-new-nikon-z9 Fair enough. I'm well invested in Canon (EF) glass and don't find L-mount glass interesting enough to switch not to mention I need advanced PDAF for both stills/video, so that leaves Panasonic off-limits for my needs. Nikon, I have a longtime affair with and know their AF system is great but I'm always afraid their lack of video department means they're going to drop the ball somewhere. The fact that there is like 5 users out there and none videographers isn't helping much with user feedback. It might be a killer hybrid but it might be a sleeper too.. Sony Alpha, way behind with no internal RAW or high resolution (aside A1) and still consumer type bodies (no pro/grip body) of which I just hate the shooting experience. So I kinda stick with Canon by default. I really like the customisation, and R5C seems to take it next-level on the video side (for a hybrid that is). Not a perfect camera though, they should have kept IBIS and give it a full HDMI imo.

"camcorder gimmicks" lol... I guess it depends how you shoot. I think exposure/focus tools can be very useful, especially at +4K and for fast turnarounds when you're not shooting raw. I also like to be able to have shutter angle & gain measures. the anamorphic desqueeze can be clutch. the LUT support is probably my favorite cine cam feature. YMMV of course. Z9's EVF is actually not that high res at 3.69 m-dots (which is kinda mid-range A7IV/R6 level) compared to R3/R5's 5.76 m-dots or A1's whopping 9.44 m-dots. E-shutter only, there are pros/cons to that. N-log's a bit dated (not the best DR, they need Nlog2/Nlog3). But overall though, I agree Z9 on paper has the better specs in most areas. Like you were saying earlier, the biggest problem with Z9 will be getting a hold of one. Canon I just read have managed to get around the chip supply shortage and that may very well turn out to be a great advantage at this time and point.

Z9 & R3 are indeed the current flagships at D6/1DX3 equivalent prices. ..very nice specs on both but again on video side, you're not going to get WFM, false color, LUT support, dual ISO, time code, magnify during record etc. These are very important cine features imo. That is where R5C beats both, for much cheaper. But yeah no IBIS or instant photo/video switching. So yeah, there is no perfect hybrid. Always a compromise somewhere!

Well there is always R3 if you want 6K RAW + IBIS, long battery life, with no overheat and instant switching to stills. No cine OS assist tools and LUT import etc though.

No, I asked you what does CS have to do with sensor size, not lenses. Simple question, you seem to be the one not following. By the way, the Yedlin quote you took was from his essay on color science. Again, off-topic. If you wanna quote Yedlin, at least try do it from one of his essays on format sizes which would then at least be relevant to this discussion: ON COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT LARGE FORMAT OPTICS MATCHING LENS BLUR ON DIFFERENT FORMAT SIZES (btw you'll notice CS never gets mentioned. wonder why?) Now while all that Yedlin says is factually true, I can't say I necessarily agree with his conclusions that lean on the Chris Nichols side that there is no Large format look because DoF & FoV can be matched by equivalencies and that the audience won't know the difference: Since the audience can see only the final blur circles and neither the f/stop nor the sensor size, they can't see in the final image if blur circles are increased by a larger format size or by a larger aperture. Those two things are interchangeable in the final image, so this is not a "look" that's discernable in the final image. (It may be easier for the the filmmaker to achieve a certain size blur circle in one format or another but the audience also can't see how easy or difficult it is -- they only see the final image, so again, it's not a "look.”). This is where the MINI/65 comparison video comparing the 35mm to the 70mm shows a huge difference in look/aesthetic and imo contradicts this conclusion. His example of matching a 50mm at F11 to a 18mm at F4 is certainly not conclusive either imo. Shoot that LF 50mm at F1.3 and good luck finding an equivalent 18mm f0.5! Yet his response to that is again that the audience will never know so there is no look: Even in an unusual edge case where a filmmaker has a specific model of large format lens at an extremely wide aperture and the only lens model available to him/her for a smaller format camera can't open wide enough to get the same size blur circles: anyone who only looks at the final image and wasn't there when the image was captured can't SEE that the aperture was at its endpoint, so that's not a "look" -- it's just something that the filmmakers are aware of during production (that the aperture and not the sensor was the limting factor in this particular case). Let's keep in mind though that Yedlin is talking from a digital cinema perspective where S35 is still the standard and hence the format with most lens choices (vs 65mm LF). So this subjective point of view doesn't necessarily fully translate to our hybrid world where FF is the longstanding widespread standard and most people here invest in an according lens format system. So you color matched a lomo to a samyang shot in post. Congrats, but that still has nothing to do with sensor size. I strongly suggest you start another thread to discuss CS or even lens emulation in post, which are both interesting side topics.

@BTM_Pix You've surely seen this already but I guess it deserves being posted as its basically identical project (VP with VIVE/UE and short-throw projector):

Fascinating stuff! As an occasional gamer who recently acquired a PS5, i can only say games using UE engine and other next-gen engines (Detroit, God of War etc) are simply mind blowing with the realism of the environments and real-time rendering of bokeh, rack focusing, lens flare, lighting etc. Also having recently produced a filmed project with augmented 3D assets done in Blender/Unity, this topic is of interest. It was fascinating to me how seamlessly my VFX unit pulled the metadata from the RAW filmed footage to recreate the scene environments respecting focal length, aperture, WB etc. VP is complete next-level, here's another ILM promo from season 2 where they took things even further: Mega-million budget for sure but it would sure be interesting to see if/how this tech can somewhat trickle down..

Oh I totally agree with you on that, different pairings yield different results. I also have the EF 50mm F1.2L and find it too lacking on crop sensors, but also have a FF 85mm Zeiss that looks great when adapted on my FS7's S35 sensor. There is no rule of thumb, its down to personal preference and look you're trying to achieve. Must admit I'm curious about how FF lenses must look on MF. Plenty of vignetting I'm sure. or are you using the 35mm crop mode on the GFX?

ok now you're making yourself sound like you're some kind of unrecognised martyr on this holy crusade to solve the great mysteries of film making, swimming against the tide from evil hordes of blinded brand zealots. what is this Passion of the EOSHD Christ? I mean I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers but again you are simply way off-topic: you're bringing up color science again ffs. what does CS have to do with sensor size? please answer, genuinely curious.

Simply making observations made on a real-life comparison test video. Not even arguing about the thousand hours you put in post to emulate the look of the 65+DNA Prime by adding vignette, barrel distortion, grading ETC. No disrespect to your skills but again sorry, you're being off-topic. (Personally, I think I'd rather use a speed booster to achieve any bigger sensor lens look than muck around in post all day with bigger sensor reference footage you never get irl to emulate it, but to each their own.) That is not what I'm saying. What is even a "nice" lens? That's so subjective. Some like modern tack sharp, others soft with vintage flair. What is for sure is that FF has the biggest lens selection 35mm being such an old & popular format. But again, your deflecting to an entire other side conversation. I'm saying a FF/MF/LF lens will give its full characteristics on it's native sensor size, regardless of how "nice" a lens is. On a crop sensor, only the center of the optic will be used, losing some of its inherent characteristics. Its pretty basic stuff really, not sure what you are arguing about. And of course I'm talking about lenses, I thought it was established pages ago that sensor size AND lens pairing go hand-in-hand. Anyways I kinda feel you're being purposely dense and obtuse for the sake of argument winning, I've noticed this in many other threads that seemed to aimlessly go on forever, so let's maybe save up some bandwidth and just agree to disagree on this topic? 😉 Cheers

Huh? Did you actually read my post? Nobody is doubting you can match a Mini to a 65 in post. What I'm saying is that is totally besides the point of the test & discussion which is camera sensor size, and lens pairings not CS. This is corroborated by the DP himself which I've quoted. Not sure what Canon or GH6 has got to do with this either? Again you seem obsessed with color science. Sorry but you're being off-topic (and acting a bit of a jerk in the process).