TomTheDP

I also think the sensor matters a lot more than the codec. The Alexa looks great in Prores 422, but its still reading out at 14 bits and getting most of the dynamic range. 

One of the reasons I prefer prores to RAW is because you can downsample. This saves you data without losing much resolution. Downsampled 2k on the Alexa looks about as good as the full 3.2k resolution, but you use way less space. I have downsampled 6k to 2k on the S1H. The 2k side by side with 6k is almost indistinguishable unless you are really cropping in a lot. Shooting in 6k resolution is super data heavy. The last film I worked on we shot on the URSA 12K in 12k. Crazy data rates. I wish the Ursa 12k had an option to downsample from 12k to 4k prores. 

The in camera 4k RAW on the URSA 12K is noticeably less detailed than the 12k. Down sampled 12k Prores would look insanely sharp. 

Of course you can always shoot in whatever codec and transcode in post, but its just nice to get it in camera, throw it on your computer and it's ready to go. 

The ones that don’t have clog2 kind of suck dynamic range wise. All Sony cams (mostly) have slog3 which can contain all the dynamic range the sensor can put out.

Thanks! This was a Kodak 500T lut a DP friend of mine made using Dehancer. 

I think maybe they work better for weddings where you are sniping shots. I have to do focus pulls on dollys and such for take after take so more precision is required maybe. 

Some stills from a feature film I just wrapped on yesterday. This is just with a lut applied no further adjustments or corrections. 

 

I think maybe they work better for weddings where you are sniping shots. I have to do focus pulls on dollys and such for take after take so more precision is required maybe. 

I have tried a couple of cine lenses but didn’t really get on with them, especially for hybrid use, but if I only shot video, for sure I’d probably be using a set from someone like DZO or even Sigma, but the latter are a bit pricy.
Before I pushed the button on trying this 40+ year old lens, I was considering the DZO 35-80, but the cost size and weight put me off.
It’s 1.5x the weight of the Lumix 70-200mm f4 which I somewhat grudgingly have because I need it, but only use it at 3 specific times on a job.
The thought of using that 35-80 all day long, well just 🤪
The CZ 40-80, around 600g so probably around 700-750g with the adapters and is more compact than my 70-200, a nice balance of heft for stability but not taxing to use all day.
Just been eyeing up the CZ 80-200…but I’m not going to get ahead of myself!

Some stills from a feature film I just wrapped on yesterday. This is just with a lut applied no further adjustments or corrections. 

 

Some stills from a feature film I just wrapped on yesterday. This is just with a lut applied no further adjustments or corrections. 

 

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. 
 
for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean. 

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. 
 
for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean. 

New teaser to replace the previous one on Kickstarter:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1if6N08m5xBfgUMILeG3KSEvmnbGPPFHg

 

 

I feel it is useful for a ton of people. I would assume run and gun/vlog/youtube style shooting is what the majority of camera users are doing these days. I feel Industry industry shoots are not the majority of what cameras are being used for. A super formal shoot is probably using a cinema camera although hybrids are sometimes used.

You might not have any need for it so the term is ‘I’ not ‘we’ 😜
I’m really not sure why we don’t have more cameras with internal ND but read it is possibly an IBIS clash ‘thing’?
I would like both personally but horses for courses and all that…

I find IBIS to be critical to my workflow personally, as I shoot exclusively handheld and do so while walking etc, but I definitely understand that I'm in the minority.
But yeah, having that eND would be spectacular - set to auto-ISO / auto-eND / 180 shutter / desired aperture for background defocus and you're good to go!

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course.

But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post.

But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography.

That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range.

But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse.

Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue.

Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech.

There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look.

I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.


 

Amazing congrats!

It is for acquiring plates though. DSLR's have been used for a while for crash cams or things like this. I remember the 5d was listed on the Avengers. Not really going to be ever seen as an A, B or even C cam on a major production. This isn't to discount the GH5 or any other camera just being realistic.

There are some good voices on youtube. Most channels are selling cameras though so of course they are not going to promote old stuff. Consumerism is definitely in full swing though and the filmmaker market is insane in this regard. There is a recent trend to do reviews of old cameras which is refreshing (maybe saying it is a trend is exaggerating it).

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course.

But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post.

But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography.

That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range.

But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse.

Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue.

Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech.

There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look.

I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.


 

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course.

But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post.

But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography.

That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range.

But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse.

Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue.

Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech.

There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look.

I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.


 

I just sold mine, now I am almost regretting it. 😅

I really wish companies would continue pursuing the film look. I think even ARRI has moved to high res/clean digital look with the Alexa 35. I get it, capture the cleanest image possible and make all the choices in post. It just isn't my style at all.

I'd imagine you could shave off a decent amount of weight. Camera's are already so small though so we are talking pretty small amounts in general.

 

I am kind of over the GH5 but it's certainly a capable camera. You can definitely get a worse image from a technically better camera, so much has to do with all the other factors that go into a production.

Some will say, myself included, that I just like geeking over camera tech and that it is a hobby. But how much is the interest being influenced by these companies. Are they dictating our interests through marketing? Are people capable of independent thought or are we all just following the arrows laid by these large corporations. It definitely sometimes feels like the latter. Content and the world seems to be less and less creative and more and more just a bunch of cheap and lifeless products paired with boring and lifeless people.

I am getting too pessimistic at this point. There is certainly still a ton of creativity in the world. It is just easier to talk about product releases I suppose as it is easy and doesn't really challenge the mind.
 

Amazing congrats!

Same, the Classic sensor in a komodo sized package would be a blessing. They were able to drastically reduce the size while increasing the size of the sensor and frame rates with the mini in 2015. I would think 8 years later they could probably further reduce the size and power draw especially using the Classic sensor. Definitely not going to happen as ARRI only serves the biggest industry clients who it wouldn't appeal to.