Jump to content

(Sony F35 vs Arri Amira) Skintone, Sharpness Comparison Test - Save Some money, buy yesteryear's best.


Ed_David

Recommended Posts

 

Testing quick skin tone test - with fujifilm look on Alexa and Sony F35 - seeing if they can intercut.

So Amira was on 100mm ultra prime on sticks
Sony F35 was handheld with 85mm ultra prime.

Opps!  Should have both cameras on sticks and with same lens!  Being lazy helps no one.

Anyway, I found the cameras incredibly similar looking.
Hope this little test is useful in some small way to someone out there, anywhere.

And if not, I am so sorry I wasted your time.  I really am.
If I wasted your time, please comment that I wasted your time and I will reply and say, "I''m really sorry I wasted your time."

The other thing is that the f35 with odyssey 7q to dpx 12 bit is around a $10,000 solution right now and the Amira is about a $60k solution.  Sure the Amira is a much nicer ergonomic system and has built in NDs and has many more nice convenient options, but really - you save $50,000. Because people don't like stuff from 2008.  They need stuff from last year.  It's kind of nuts how "gear-forward" everyone is.   Especially now that most cameras are in the same ballpark of log or RGB recording and resolution and sensor size.  Oh well, gotta keep selling the latest and greatest.

So you save $50,000 - that's a lot of money.  Just by buying something that was once new and cool and expensive but is now forgotten.  

This is what you can buy with $50,000 you save.

A set of nice lenses
A house.
A really nice car
Help save the planet's infrastructure
Help save the planet's wealth discrenpancy problem.
Shoot a feature film.
Bail your friend out of jail.

It can buy a lot of great things.

Remember kids, the latest technology is nice - but the best stuff from 2008 still holds up.  Go ahead, give it a try!  It's fun to play with old things!

Link to post
Share on other sites

looks like they could cut together pretty well to me too, even with the sloppy test

I definitely would buy an f35 if I had the money. Maybe in about a year when I think I will, it will be even cheaper. Though people may start to mark them up

Do you have any moire issues with the f35? I noticed in some early Dexter episodes, which according to imdb 1st couple seasons were shot on an f35, had some really severe looking stuff. Mostly in really wide shots where they show the city.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I regraded it better - made more natural.

It's not going to get cheaper - not many of them are left on the chopping block.  But anyway by next year the URSA mini 4.6k should be damn good - we will see.

 

No moire issues - I'm curious how Dexter screwed it up - it resolves very well.  Huge photosites on the sensor and elegant debayer to 1080p.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What I dislike about the F35 most:
1) spare parts / repairs / reliability. It still is going to cost you like a quarter million dollar camera will. Is like owning a Rolls Royce, even if you get an older model for cheap, it will still make you broke via upkeep. 
2) the sheer size of it! Even though its price has got smaller, its size hasn't. You still ideally want the full size crew that a film with a budget for a $250,000 camera would command. Even an URSA Mini would be smaller and easier to work with a small crew (and personally, an URSA Mini seems like about the max size I'd go for). 

Personally what gets me more excited is my US$150 Panasonic GH1 bodies and looking forward to getting a Panasonic AF100 later this year for hopefully far south of US$1k. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dislike that Fujifilm look you've got on it. Whilst it's probably closer colour-wise to Fuji stock than Kodak, I wouldn't go as far to say that it looks like it's been shot on Fuji stock.

Anyway, the Alexa obviously has the slight advantage in regards to dynamic range. The colours on both cameras are different - but would be easy enough to match to be able to intercut, Which one you prefer will depend greatly on your own personal taste.

IMO, this 'test' (along with another one I saw recently that compared $15k, $5k, and $500 lenses) really doesn't mean much until you blow it up on the big screen.

I do like the images you can get out of an F35, and I think I've said this before, but I'm not sure I'd be investing in it as my A-cam, unless I simply had an extra $10k to throw around.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched Ex Machina on the big screen - and it didn't look good.  Sorry you don't like my look - looks are just looks - personal tastes.  Also I lit him with a kino that was lighting a focus chart - and it was in a mixed fluorescent room - not the best options to get a nice look from.  Lighting is everything.  The other test with the lenses I still could see the advantage of the ultra primes and it was a joke test as well.

If you want real tests, go to CML or do the tests yourself.  Can't complain if its free.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just watched Ex Machina on the big screen - and it didn't look good.  Sorry you don't like my look - looks are just looks - personal tastes.  Also I lit him with a kino that was lighting a focus chart - and it was in a mixed fluorescent room - not the best options to get a nice look from.  Lighting is everything.  The other test with the lenses I still could see the advantage of the ultra primes and it was a joke test as well.

If you want real tests, go to CML or do the tests yourself.  Can't complain if its free.

​Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to complain! If anything, this once again proves that lighting is everything - moreso than what particular camera body you're giong to go with (as you show, the Alexa and F35 are pretty similar looking, at least on the web on Vimeo).

I'd love to see F35 vs Alexa on a cinema screen

Link to post
Share on other sites

based on your previous videos you seem like a very talented guy, but what is up with these grades? I honestly could not watch the clip, just scrubed it. Is this kind of look a thing? Othervise a great looking raw picture on the sony...alexa is great, but we already know that :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol that test, comparing lenses at f5.6...

​Hmm? First wannabe filmmakers claim that "most films are shot at f4-f5.6" and then when the lenses are tested at those apertures it turns into "Lol, only f5.6!". And this eventhough there were f1.8 tests in there too.

I guess you can never win it in the internets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

​Hmm? First wannabe filmmakers claim that "most films are shot at f4-f5.6" and then when the lenses are tested at those apertures it turns into "Lol, only f5.6!". And this eventhough there were f1.8 tests in there too.

I guess you can never win it in the internets.

Shure,whatever... If you make a comparison you should obviously go where the big differences lie. The 1.8 test were at night and the difference was obvious, with sunlight it get even more obvious, at 5.6 on a vimeo stream its subtle. Same thing with the focal length, try to compare a cinema 18mm under f2 to a photographic one, the difference is huge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

If you shoot at 5.6 you should watch a lens test at 5.6, if you shoot at 1.8 you should watch a lens test at 1.8 as a 5.6 test is no benefit to you and vice versa

Obvious. 

That's why a good reviewer must test lenses at all aperture ratings and all focal lengths (if a zoom) for the test to be beneficial for all shooters. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...