Django

@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).

From my experience with C200 & R5 CRL the footage is considerably sharper with finer detail. and of course 12-bit color. Should really unlock that DGO sensor and be an IQ game changer. If you've been underwhelmed by C70 up until now, be prepared for a significant IQ upgrade with the firmware update.

@kye sorry but can't say I agree, frankly I don't see how anyone could make a better sensor size comparison? sounds to me like you're focusing too much on the exposure, color science etc in your grading experiments to match both cameras. that wasn't at all the point of the test and the differences in exposure and color are due mostly to the 3D rig that means one camera is shooting through a mirror which makes you lose a stop of light and color shifts as the DP states himself: "Thanks! The color shifts are due to the mirror of the 3D rig which unfortunately makes it impossible to compare color. Also, the different ND Filters and lenses are influencing the image. If you would shoot without this specific 3D-Rig setup, the colors would match because both cameras are based on the same color science." So while I'm sure you've learned a lot by attempting to match both cameras CS in post, that isn't what the test is about. The first shot say a lot. Using a same 40mm lens on both sensors displays massive angle of view difference. Second & last shots with angle of view matched by lens equivalency shows the huge differences in between a 35mm & 70mm (compression, DoF, bokeh) but also center crop vs full circle (vignetting, edge blur). Those DNA primes are made for the 65 and have so much mojo: "The DNA LF lenses have an individuality, when most lenses these days are going for uniformity and technical perfection. They remind me of older anamorphic lenses, in terms of the very subtle vignetting and focus drop off." While these lenses, created for the Alexa 65 could already be used on the Alexa LF, the obvious problem is this: on the Alexa LF you would only be using the very sharp center portion of the lenses for the larger format Alexa 65, thus loosing a lot of the characteristics that make the DNA lenses special. This is exactly what I've been saying all along when adapting FF lenses to crop sensors. That said there are certain instances where you may not want vignetting, focus drop off, or even shallow DoF (without stopping down. Nice thing about FF is that most cams today allow you to crop to a S35. This is always a better solution than the reverse speed-boosting which brings in other optical issues. The low light tests show the much noisier image of the smaller sensor. The 200% zoom-in shots the difference in resolution. In the end, it's a very thorough and revealing test that showcases just about everything to consider about sensor sizes and their correlation to lens pairings on an aesthetic & technical level.

Prince Andrew should have hired that Rep for his PR team.. Good at dodging bullets & sweatproof.

Yeah it gets even more confusing in digital cinema as "Super35" isn't even a standard within camera manufacturers. Quick search reveals that: the ARRI Alexa has a sensor that is 4:3, 23.8 x 17.8mm. The Canon C200 uses a 16:9 sensor at 24.6 x 13.8 mm. Panasonic gave the EVA-1 a 4:3 sensor at 24.89 x 18.66 mm. Blackmagic with their 23.1 x 12.99 mm in the BMPCC 6K. All of these are marketed as Super 35, but if you put the same lens on each of these cameras you’ll end up with a slight variation in the image crop. With FF its 36x24mm all across. That's a S16 lens though. I was talking about adapting FF lenses to crop sensors. I wouldn't go that far, both cams are using top-notch ARRI lenses! I think it's a wonderful test, depending on what you're looking for. The second clip with the 35mm vs 70mm shows such a huge difference. It's whole other feel/look. Disregarding FoV/DoF comparisons, the clearest variable is resolution difference (6K vs 3.8K). That kinda flaws the comparison if trying to be objective but it's actually pertinent to the original discussion considering medium format usually has about double megapixel res than FF. and as we were saying one could argue higher resolution enhances the lens rendition. The vignetting on the 65's wide sensor vs the center crop on the mini also shows how you're getting the full characteristics of the lens circle. That alone is huge imo (especially on a $30-40K ARRI prime lens lol). You can fake vignetting/edge blur etc in post but as you said it's going to be approximate.. and fake. The 65's bigger sensor also does much better in lowlight, even though the mini has pleasing filmic noise. Haven't done a deep dive with the footage as you have so I'm sure a bunch of other details/variables are present but resolution/low light aside I may prefer the Alexa on some shots. Guess I'm also conditioned/biased towards the overall look & feel of its IQ.

Of course its about lenses.. AND how they interact on a sensor size. Going FF for the Ozark DP allowed him to rehouse and use Leica R glass with the same feel as on 35mm film. No need to hunt down an impossible to find 23mm f0.95 equivalent just to get the standard 35mm f1.4 FoV/Dof look. And yes I know all about Voigtlander but that is just one speciality lens maker. Speedboosters are another common trick to achieve FF but then we're really talking "faux-full-frame". Going FF opens you up to fast wides from all popular lens makers from all periods of time. And like I said earlier it's not just about DoF. A 23mm has more distortion than a 35mm. Both in FoV & perspective. In the end it's subjective, again I am not a FF elitist when it comes to video/film. I also love Super35 and the thousands of modern classics shot on Alexas, REDs, Varicams etc.. But there is a convenience of just popping on any FF lens and the focal length aperture is what it is. no math involved.

Ok I understand better what you are asking and its a valid observation. There could be some truth to that. I know that with 4K and above my lens properties are certainly more visible so one could probably argue higher resolution enhances the sensor size look. But the reason I said that, was probably more just because I've been shooting FF stills since basically a kid with point & shoot film camera. That aesthetic is just burned in my mind. Whereas in film there have always been several standards including 8/16mm. In digital cinema Super35 has now long been the norm so that also plays a role on a subconscious level. But things are going full-circle, a lot of high-end DP's are going FF or even LF with the Alexa65. A throwback to the two big cinema film standards 35mm & 65mm. Netflix's Ozark DP had this to say when described switching from the Varicam (S35) to FF on the Venice: ““ I started as a still photographer on 35mm film. It creates a feeling. For example, I can describe it like shooting Super 8 versus full-frame, I feel like I’m watching it in a box, from far away. As a viewer, I feel distant, even in a close-up. It’s nostalgic, but I don’t feel connected. TV lives in the world of a medium close-up. We never go really tight. In full-frame, you still feel close. As Kutchins described, they took older Leica R lenses and rehoused them, which gave them the ability to shoot wide open. It opens so super wide. I was intrigued by it as we went down the wormhole with the family, in isolation and distrust. I was intrigued to use the wider aperture to create more character separation. I love the result. Both Armando and I were excited by the possibilities. We play with depth of field and with lenses to create a separation from character in the background. Even with a wide lens, you can feel the character coming into my space and coming into the living room. That’s what we’re trying to do as filmmakers, create a presence in 2D space." In the end I guess it's really all about the lenses and how different size sensors translates them to your screen to achieve a certain type of scenery/separation/connection.