kye

I think this is one of the main things that is actually being discussed - that of lens availability. From what I understand, you can halve the size of the sensor and halve the size of the lens and get the same rendering of FOV and DoF, but with a difference in how much light is gathered. Often "the Hollywood look" is referred to as being a wide close-up with shallow DoF, which is easier on FF. However the main point is that it's only easier on FF because of the lenses that are out there in the world, rather than any particular challenge with making wide/fast lenses for smaller (or larger) sensors. In this way, while people are talking about FF sensors, they're actually not talking about the sensor or camera at all, they're talking about the availability of lenses that exist in the world already, which is mostly dictated by 1) the almost completely unrelated topic of the historic popularity of 35mm negative film, and 2) the state of globalisation and trade during the time that 35mm film cameras were manufactured in great numbers. One thing I remember hearing was that often people shot on large format film for large / complex VFX shots where (IIRC) 70mm / LF film had more resolution / less noise than any digital sensor and therefore was better to form the basis of those shots for the VFX teams to work on. Assuming this is true (you have to question everything these days!) then it would be why film would get mentioned a lot on various blockbuster productions, when it's really being used as a specialist tool, like a Phantom might be for high FPS shots. Of course, now with the resolution wars that might no longer be the case anymore - maybe people just shoot the whole thing (or a few shots) on the Alexa 65 or equivalent RED/VENICE. Having said that, there is a bit of an underground for using film I think. Considering the relative difficulty in getting a perfect film emulation (Yedlin had to write his own software - that's pretty serious!) and also the relatively low cost of film if you're doing a larger budget project. Also, I wonder how many productions are shot on sub-S35mm film, like ~16mm and ~8mm formats. They do cost money but it's not prohibitive. Noam Kroll is into it and has given some good write-ups and cost breakdowns: https://noamkroll.com/why-im-shooting-my-next-film-on-super-16mm-how-you-can-afford-to-shoot-on-film-too/ https://noamkroll.com/shooting-16mm-film-on-a-budget-with-my-new-arri-16srii/ If I read those numbers correctly, you could shoot a 90 minute feature on S16 film, with a 5:1 shooting ratio, from ~$10K in total film costs (buying the film and processing and scanning) which would give you a 2K Prores file for you to colour grade yourself. If you're making a feature then $10K isn't nothing, but it's also not a prohibitive cost either, assuming you're closer to the 'professional film' end of the spectrum rather than the 'student film' end. I remember shooting a short film with my sister during her film school years for AUD $2K in total, and I think that catering was our largest cost! We pulled in a great many favours for that one, I think it had a cast of about 20 (mostly extras) and took place in a high-end bar which we borrowed overnight during the week. Fun times. Anyway... IIRC he also mentioned some costs about shooting with 8mm film, but I don't think they were in those two articles above? His blog is filled with great info if you're not familiar with it. In one of the above he mentions that film is having a resurgence, and obviously those articles are a bit dated, but not entirely sure what evidence he presents for it.

I am not sure which WB approach would generate the best match, or even if the WB differences I've seen in comparisons are due to the WB of the camera or just how the cameras were all treated in post. All the more reason to do your own tests I guess. Considering you own both cameras, I'd suggest you film both (match WB settings and also do a custom WB) and then play with the post workflow and see which overall approach is best. I'm curious to hear what you find 🙂

I've noticed that in all the cinema camera comparisons on YT there are significant WB differences between cameras, regardless of if they say they "set all the cameras to 5600K" or if they said they did a custom WB. Some of these differences are quite significant actually - so much so that they render the comparison pretty much meaningless. These are across enough DPs that I don't think it's user error. I would suggest that in addition to the custom WB on each camera, I'd get full-spectrum shots of the colour chart to use as a reference in post. In post I'd suggest using ACES or RCM to colour-manage your workflow, and test your conversions with the colour chart to see how closely your settings get the two cameras. The reason that I suggest this method is that there may be differences between how your colour pipeline handles the two LOG profiles, even though both cameras are the same brand, so any differences should be minimised. I'd be comparing the two shots confirming that the greys are neutral, but also that the primaries are all similar hues (ie, no hue rotation), the same luminance, and also the same level of saturation. The more colour swatches you have on the colour checker the better so you can tell if there are any non-linear differences that might need tweaking. Beyond that, unless you're doing a multi-cam with similar angles, you just need to match the cameras in post so that the footage from both looks like "they're both from the same universe". People are very forgiving when it comes to noticing colour shifts (unless your content is boring or they're very interested in cameras) - if you look at older movies shot on film there were often large colour differences and those didn't send people running from the theatre etc.

Good to hear you worked it out. Resolve has all the options but sometimes it guesses wrong and you need to roll your sleeves up and correct it. I guess that's what happens when you make something more powerful - it's got a steeper learning curve.

Why is 120p the normal frame-rate for 3D production? Do you deliver in 120p? or is there some sort of processing going on in post? I'm curious.

I disagree - those sensors are better because they're more recent. The challenge is that 1) older FF cameras didn't shoot video, and 2) in stills cameras the FF cameras were the most expensive. Most discussions also involve an element of "FF gives shallower DoF" only it's usually not spelled out like that, but instead it's phrased as "more cinematic" or some other nebulous thing that really just boils down to shallow DoF. This is because FF lenses are made to have shallower DoF than lenses for other systems, but that's just a quirk of history rather than a fundamental limitation - they could have been made similarly for other sensor sizes but they just weren't. FF does gather slightly more light, and all else being equal, that gives lower noise and therefore higher DR, but that means that in a decade or two we'll just be arguing about FF vs LF and the manufacturers will be trying to sell us 16K LF cameras and people will be saying how the cinema standard is FF (having forgotten about S35 completely) but the LF-Bros will be taking about how only the LF sensors can use AI to adjust the aperture to keep both eyes of a mosquito in focus at the same time and FF can't do that, and that's completely essential to them and that Sony will go bankrupt if they don't go LF dynamic mosquito aperture AF.

It was to try and put the size of the sensor in perspective, considering that the vast majority of features and pro video work are still shot on S35. Without a frame of reference that includes, well, reality, sensor size conversations quickly warp to another universe where nothing makes sense.

Not many Fuji-Bros on YT... I suspect there will also be lens/ecosystem inertia holding people back from moving to Fuji. In a way, because everyone now "simply must have" pet-eye-detect PDAF, the idea of buying vintage/manual primes and adapting them has lessened quite a bit, which is sad because it would allow you to move to any mirrorless camera without having the issues of re-buying lenses etc - just buy a dumb adapter and you're done.

I'm seeing more and more FX30 videos on YT and they all seem to have the same overall 'look' as the other Sony cameras like the FX30 and A7S3 (and FX6 to some extent). The fact that YT people (who often can't colour grade to save their lives) are getting consistent results across a variety of conditions really speaks to the FX30 having similar capabilities to the rest of their 'cinema' line. That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on what you think about the Sony look, but I firmly believe that how easy a camera is to use (both the camera itself as well as how easy it is to colour grade) plays a huge role in how good a camera is. If something is the best camera in the world, but only one person on earth is talented enough to grade it to get better results than other cameras, then in practical terms, that camera isn't better than the others.

I guess the way I was looking at it was that there's the top end who can use whatever they want and will use the latest and greatest, then the mid-tier who hire, then the top-tier who own, then mid-tier who can afford to own an ARRI (no low-tier when it comes to owning an ARRI!), and the functioning cameras would essentially trickle-down through the tiers. The fact that the lowest second-hand price was still high sort of indicates that there's still that much demand, even in the lowest tiers. Considering that ARRI have been making Alexas for over a decade now means that there will be huge numbers our there in the wild, so if they make a years worth of sales of the 35, it's unlikely to be more than 10-20% of the Alexas already out there (plus assuming that there aren't many LFs compared to normal Alexas), meaning that 80%+ of ARRIs will be S35 and still in high demand. To me, if I was in the market for a cinema camera and an Alexa Classic was in my budget and I wanted the name brand recognition and the colour science etc, the fact that there's a new FF Alexa wouldn't really affect me that much. Yes, it would impact the top-end folks, but at some point in the 'tiers' the people will still value that an Alexa Classic is an ARRI, with all the pedigree and tack record the camera has, and none of that goes away just because there's a newer model. I think this is a significant thing considering that I suspect the majority of ARRI owners (non-rental houses) probably don't care that much. Unless you're somehow required to shoot 4K, which very few are, then an Alexa Classic is still a very desirable camera that meets probably all the requirements you'd have.

Interesting. If it was purely a supply and demand thing where people just needed more cameras then you wouldn't expect any price changes at all (sensor size doesn't create new production houses!) so any drop must be that they're less desirable, or that people were waiting to update their equipment. I guess if rental houses maintain a fleet of X cameras and they all decide to get more FF models at once (a sensible strategy I'd imagine) then it would be a temporary glut in the market as they all offload their worst condition models. That would suggest that prices will bounce back up again once the demand has absorbed the temporary supply blip. I suspect it's a combination of both so prices will bounce back but probably not to the same level that they were at previously. Good news for those looking for a bargain!

The example that stands out to me for shallow DoF was The Handmaid's Tale, which used shallow DoF to show the isolation of the handmaids from their surroundings and society in general. Such subtle use is far more unsettling than the average horror film that is little more than the output from a random motion / sound generator with credits at each end.

This would have been my guess - that equipment and tech 'trickles down' to the lower budget productions over time. In keeping with that thought, OG Alexas and Amira's are still many many thousands of dollars second hand, so are still of considerable value and in demand. I would assume then, that all cinema cameras ever made (except the ones that have died), are still in use somewhere, which would mean that there's a spectacular number of S35 cinema cameras out there in use. I saw in a welding YT channel video the other day that one of the cameras was an Amira (when one camera got another in shot), and it was fully rigged out as you'd expect. The channel was around 1M subs, and was definitely a commercial operation judging by how it was branded and the content. I'd imagine that there are probably millions of channels with that number of subscribers, so easily enough of a user-base to absorb all yesterdays cinema cameras.

The FX30, which, as a crop sensor, is mathematically incapable of shallow DoF, cinematic images, or going viral on TikTok. I know those things are true - I read them on the internet.

This would be my main concern. Obviously it offers lower resolution downsamples, but they're limited and as you say, 435Mbps is still pretty hefty. I find it strange that the entire industry seems to have forgotten that peoples TVs don't scale with resolution, and that image quality is proportional to bitrate rather than resolution, but processing power does scale with resolution - regardless of bitrate. Does it offer 1080p Prores HQ? That's just under 200Mbps.

I recently saw a video with a sponsorship that lets you license normal music - not sure if it's the same one but it seems like that's a thing now.

This video is a colourist putting an FX30 shot through a relatively strong grade, so might be useful for those curious about how much the footage holds up in post with qualifiers etc.. TLDR; it held up. Like almost all modern cameras that shoot 10-bit log. He was surprised that the WB and skin tones were dead on, which apparently other Sony cameras are bad at.

It's better, but it's still really scraping the bottom of the barrel... In that example it's mostly that there are slightly less colour shifts.

Yeah, and people often forget that on productions where everything/everyone costs money then equipment is likely rented and the cost of the camera is virtually inconsequential in comparison to the costs (and delays) associated with having issues on set or in post. It's pretty hard to justify anything that people aren't already familiar with, simply because it is another thing that can cause delays or go wrong and therefore cost the production money.

Sadly, these forums are one of the most enlightened places online. The current state of film-making is at an all-time low due to availability of equipment and popularity of outputs. Is this a good thing or a bad thing, well, that's up to everyone to decide for themselves, but the average discussion online will very confidently tell you that: FF is better there are people who say sensor size doesn't matter, but they're basically triggered all the time and sound crazy you choose the colour science you want by buying the best camera (and half the people can't even spell LUT, let alone understand that you can colour grade to match cameras) the only measure of a camera is the resolution of the sensor the only measure of a lens is the size of the aperture the only measure of a lens is how sharp it is at its widest aperture the best lens if you're not on FF is the Sigma 18-35 BM are the best cameras available BM owners don't know anything about anything and should be banned from owning cameras etc If you think Hollywood is immune to these trends, then think again. It took a while for them to get FF fever, but they got it in the end, and when they talk about sensor size and lenses and shallow DoF it's just word-salad coming out of their mouths and they know about as little as the average social media bro with a FF Sony...

Link above is broken - here's the real one: https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-world-s-largest-camera-is-nearly-complete

I often watch YT in various resolutions, from 4K to 480p, and I've noticed that the 1080p quality can be hugely variable. Some content looks great and other stuff looks absolutely atrocious. The only thing that seems to predict it is the quality of the camera, however we all know that better cameras are typically used by people who pay more attention to things like uploading at an increased bitrate etc, so it may not be the camera but something else from the image pipeline. If they went 1080p-limited it would be great to see a bump in the associated bitrate, although I suspect that wouldn't happen. For some reason everyone seems to allocate constant bitrate per pixel, completely ignoring the fact that screen size is a completely independent variable.

That would be brilliant!! The vast majority of people wouldn't pay to watch 4K content, YT would take their 4K-preference out of the algorithm, without 4K watching ability most people would stop insisting on 4K content, creators wouldn't be ruthlessly pummelled for not shooting 4K, and the entire platform could switch focus from irrelevant pedantry to actual real content.

For me, if we're talking 'cinema' here, the biggest difference is in lenses and their coverage. If you're buying lenses then the S35 lenses from Sony are smaller/cheaper/lighter, and if you're renting then the zillions of S35 cine lenses out there must be cheaper to rent than those with FF coverage. I understand that the comments from others here also discuss the crop modes of FF cameras, which is also a logical comparison. Words in the English language are constantly evolving, being co-opted for good and bad, etc, but I'm wondering if a new definition is evolving? If you take an enormous step back, then you see that there's roughly the following categories for cameras: Smartphones Point-and-shoot (integrated lenses) Consumer video cameras (hand-held, integrated lens) Professional video cameras (ENG style) Hybrid mirrorless (often photo-first designs, typically quite ergonomic, no support for rigs) Cinema cameras (video-first or video-only, integrated fans, mounting points, etc) Looking at things from this perspective, which is really the perspective of the 'content creator' who shoots with a variety of tools, the FX30 is more akin to a cinema camera. If you're someone that exists solely in the world of the professional sets, the fact that Sony call something a "cinema" camera won't fool you at all and is a pretty inconsequential label to add to it. You could make the argument that cameras like the R5 and GH6 and FX30 might be best put into an additional category rather than the ones I listed above, but if you had to choose then lots of cameras without these 'essential' features fit much better in the last category than any other.

The internet can be magic, but not that kind of magic!