Leaderboard

The point has been missed a bit.... I'm not suggesting the iphone is a great tool for wedding videos... or that it is a cheap way to do it. All I'm saying is that the composition, editing, sound etc have made this look really good and something we often lose focus of

Most very low budget (under $10 million) features and indies shoot prores. What's more remarkable is the success of such an inexpensive movie. The Alexa's prores looks 99.9% as good as its RAW and 10X better than most other cameras regardless of recoding format. The difference between prores 422 and 4444 is probably bigger than Alexa prores vs Codex. RAW is not a distribution format or a format that you can see without it first being processed. RAW must be processed eventually and the in-camera processing is very excellent on the Alexa. It's not that the 5D makes a better RAW file than a JPEG; it's that the 5D turns out a worse JPEG than a high end PC turns out a .TIFF from the RAW. The 5D's built in processing needs to be quick and dirty to stay fast and consume minimal power. And this carries over doubly to the 5D's terrible built in video. But an Alexa has that high end PC built in (why it's so big and heavy and battery hungry) and beyond that you're going to a high quality intermediate codec, which you'd go to anyway for vfx, same as you'd go to a TIFF to get to Photoshop. So you're getting the equivalent of a 16 bit TIFF processed with the best settings of the best RAW developer, and that's the best you can get from RAW anyway. It just happens to happen in camera with the Alexa. RAW is not an image until it's processed, so what's being debated isn't even the superiority of the format but where the processing is done. It is done poorly in a 5D. It is done well on a high end PC. And it's done well in an Alexa. Unfortunately, this issue became politicized when Red marketed a problem (you need to offload the image processing because the early Reds lacked the power to debayer properly in-camera) as a feature ("in camera RAW"). Unfortunately it's still politicized and people are ignoring that this is among the least important aspects of technical image quality. The DIT discussion is also politicized. It's a contentious position from both sides. Decent rates ($1k/day is very low for wet hire) that take others years to earn and an attack from producers trying to devalue the position on low budget work. Most of these politics do not relate to enthusiasts (same as Arri raw vs prores) except to further largely unrelated business interests by changing how conventional wisdom perceives something's value.

Nothing wrong with shooting an Alexa, but I do think that anyone in film production that truly believes technical superiority offers the best path to creative achievements has some goofy priorities. I get why aspiring filmmaker folks want to do their best technically, but to prioritize it above the artistic craft is nuts. It's there to support the thing you're trying to accomplish, not the thing itself. There's no real way forward in being a filmmaker with that attitude.

Yeah, with an Alexa.

The codec on the 5d3 isn't what killed it. It's the shit pipeline Canon put in between the 14 bit data coming off the sensor and before the data is written to the card. The codec itself is fine; it's doing a fine job lightly compressing the crappy "baked in" data its getting. Case in point, the 1dc in 1080p24 mode didn't look any better, and neither does the 1dx II (and they are using MJPEG). Whatever Canon does to that image (going from 14 bit raw to the 8 bit output) is what kills the image. Codec is the least of your problems - the c100 original had a puny 24 Megabit AVCHD file and walked all over the 3 aforementioned cameras in 1080p24. The lowly XC-10's 1080p24 does as well; same codec I believe in 1080p mode (ALL-I or IPB). Moral = line skipping / binning is not your friend.

Don't worry about it. Someone is just misconstruing the adverse lighting/exposure situation for actual camera performance. This is the YouTube world we live in. A beautifully lit scene on a crappy 10 Stop camera can look better than an Alexa in a bad lighting situation... but try explaining why to a beginning enthusiast is always gonna be a challenge.

Alexa ProRes (particularly in 4:3 mode with anamorphic lenses) is without a doubt a theatrical format. Many, many movies have been shot this way, and it's standard procedure for films that are under $3-5 million to go this route. Arriraw is expensive and extremely data-hungry. The Codex workflow, while bulletproof, requires a pricey on-set Vault system, and a skilled DIT to run it. ProRes can be handled with a laptop and a couple of hard drives. Boom. Direct to edit.

"We [recorded in] ProRes. In our testing we found that the benefits of shooting Raw didn’t necessarily apply to what this film needed. The ALEXA’s latitude (when shooting ProRes) was enough without going down the post-production path with Raw." https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-and-lenses-behind-2017-oscar-nominated-films/ So it turns out you can get 8 Oscar nominations (including the cinematography) without shooting RAW or film.

A great lesson in not sweating about tech and focusing on composition, editing, sound etc.... this is well worth a watch.

Another good example of how lighting and talent can make an iPhone sing. Jon Chema:

Point taken here. The thing I came to realize a long time ago is that not all camera enthusiasts are necessarily filmmakers. But all filmmakers are usually camera enthusiasts. In open forums like this, you know what happens...

I shoot a lot on my iPhone 6s Plus. It is a lot better than you think with the proper apps. It is a low light beast no, is a MFT camera a low light best no. BM cameras are not low light beasts either. Lots of high end stuff does not do 4k, but iPhones do. So that is a edge also. And I have it with me all the time, so that is a plus also. And they have OIS on them also. And my Came TV 32 bit Gimbal cost me 299 bucks, a big plus money wise. Some of you guys sound like the old turds on DPR. Anything phone related Has to be crap. Far from it.

Jimmy pls, the average viewer actually ONLY cares about DoF, dynamic range and how heavy the rig was.

yeah the ghosting is a shame. it's still a useful camera though for just working as a quick, single unit. Here's hoping the next version gets it right! Sigh...

Using C100 is what turned me on to ignoring sheets of numbers and start looking at real-world performance. It's wonderfully robust for such compressed footage. Stick a Ninja 2 on it with DNxHD 220x or similar and the footage is amazing, again, the pipeline has something good going on.

Zhiyun Crane Unboxing // How to balance // 3 tips for using in the field

I thought this was fairly common practice with the Alexa, and considered one of it's big strengths. High quality and efficient Prores. Particularly for TV where turnaround times are faster.

Only a couple of hipsters would be happy with an iPhone wedding video, and only a "naive" and only-care-about-the-hype hipster would use such equipment for a professional video. I am not even use the unstable Sony's for this reason, and nothing AUTO, I can't imagine using a phone for a paying job. There are better camera phones, why not a Samsung or a Google camera then?? I agree that one can achieve great things with whatever medium chooses (from super 8 to camera phones), but a few days ago, my NX3000+16-50 pz kit lens out performed every camera phone (mostly iPhones) that my friends and familu used to record a social event we had. And that combo costed me 1/4 of an iPhone. Plus, with the exceptional Samsung app I moved all the pictures to my Xiaomi and shared instantly. Oh, and I had a real lens, doing real lenses stuff. P.s my mobile phone+camera combo costed me half the money of the latest iPhones my friends are having, and they do more things, with better processing power, and the NX3000 WITH THE KIT lens, was in my jackets left pocket,it is even smaller with the exceptional 30mm/2f pancake.

First you say its false and then you agree with me.... and no Im not the one who brought it up. You also say, "Yes, but if you use the "equivalent" aperture, then there are no differences in DoF." My point exactly, you change the exposure. Not equivalent at all. For me its important to expose properly. "As stated and shown multiple times in various threads, compression depends only on the distance from the subject, nothing to do with the focal length or the sensor size. " My point exactly.

Not to mention that ergonomics and usabiltiy of a phone during a high pressure shoot like a wedding would be a nightmare. Sometimes it seems like a pointless attempt to be like "look what we can do", when they could take any low end camera and a better job 100x easier.

Nope, you can find gimbals that perfectly stabilize an iphone for a few hundreds, what are u talking about.

Thanks, I wish that were a real job. I'm not really short on ideas, I just lack the skills and money to make them... I guess that's why I write more than I film. You do a good job of showing off your friends' and girlfriend's good qualities... part of that is knowing them and partly because you have a really good eye.

When they got to their vows... I nearly hurled

Oh hell yeah. Used Alexa packages are getting soooooo cheap. They're really taking the piss out of the Red market. You can have a used Alexa now for what used to be the price of a brand new Red One. 90% of people I know would rather shoot Arri over anything else. The only barrier to entry is the weight, power requirements (it has a serious hunger for juice), and necessity for PL mount glass. But new cheap PL mount sets are getting released every month, and once the Minis and Amiras hit the used market complete with EF mount option and in-camera QHD ProRes, it's gonna be over. Finished and done.

The same old story pops up online all the time. Doesn't matter how many times it gets explained. DOF and Exposure doesn't change with a crop sensor. Its just a crop. And that's why a FF never can emulate MF with so called "equivalent lenses". Just like a 1" can never look exactly like a FF. If you change lens to get more SDOF youve done just that. Changed lens. Which means a different background compression. One can see it as a problem or use it as an advantage. Its up to the shooter. I choose the later. Example: I like using a 35mm on the street since I can then fill the frame with a person from a comfortable distance. Only problem is that the DOF is so shallow at f8 set at 3m (2-5m) that its tough to get things on focus. If I instead use a 17mm lens at f8 set to 3m I get from about 1m to Infinity. Much better. But its to wide, people dont fill the frame as easily. They look tiny. Solution, m4/3 crop sensor camera. Exposure does not change. The DOF is still roughly 1m to Infinity. The only thing thats changed is the crop. I can now fill the frame from roughly the same distance as the 35mm on the FF. Comparing the 35mm on FF side by side to the 17mm MFT there is another difference though. Background compression. It has changed because they are different focal lengts. A 17mm and a 35mm. So the "equivalent" wasnt 100% equivalent after all. So a crop is a crop is a crop is a crop... This is why Medium Format and Large Format is cool. I can use a 90mm portrait lens, with its DOF and compression. But still see as much background and stay at the same comfortable distance as I would with a 35ish mm on FF. "Equivalent lenses" is only for distance. A FF can never emulate a MF. Exposure and DOF is unaffected. The biggest reason for all the fuss imo is that soooooo many people only stare at DOF, DOF, DOF and DOF. They go blind to all the other characteristics of an image. Same when you try to discuss "image quality" with a large group. At least one sees sharpness and only sharpness as image quality. The discussion is pointless because anyone not picking the sharpest image is brushed off as an "idiot". The whole thing is just so tiering. I made a video on sensor sizes recently so I could have just a link to post every time the discussion gets brought up. But I haven't had time to upload it yet. And when I see all the heat people get from the DOF cruisaders Im not even sure its worth it.

Absolutely. You will save $17k in post on one feature alone. And it's always been an affordable rental.

Alexa packages are getting cheap. If i were making a narrative, i'd still buy this over any of the new stuff, if i had $17k http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?154082-FS-ARRI-ALEXA-CLASSIC-PACKAGE

I prove you wrong. Used Neuman footage, I did a 2 min graded and posted the result here in EOSHD, Andrew Reid and multiple other members elected it the best grade posted in the thread. If you do not know how to grade properly thats not anybody's fault but yours. GH5 V-LOG is extremely easy to grade. Now that the standard profile of the Canon looks better out of the box than GH5 standard - yes probably but this is not the question.

No HDMI inputs on them Maybe once USB-C becomes mainstream we might see some options using that as an input?!

Raw on a camera with highly compressed codec is awesome, raw on a camera with a high quality codec is overrated. I used to shoot raw all the time on a BMCC until I tried prores and realized it wasn't really necessary.

Nofilmschool can fuck off.

There's no point being anti-raw when you have it on something like a 5D Mark III, and it turns out to be a million times better than the compressed option on that camera.

and it's not 4k...why are they nominating films that are not in 4k at least? doesn't make any sense!

Thanks, yeah the ducks was quite friendly that day. And Gunpowder is smashing, good as new

I think a thread is enough. Nothing kills forums faster than sub forums.

My point exactly! Accept for the last part. Your knowledge can definitely protect you from hardware flaws in the same way it protects you from the horrible consequences of using camera A over camera B. My point is: The shooter is the key. Learn how to shoot and use light and almost any camera will do. But learn your cameras pros and cons so you can work with and around them. Get the camera that suits your needs. Every camera out there, every single one, has huge deal breaking flaws. You just have to pick the once you can live with

Love your work, man. Just a ton of fun and everything is always so well done. I actually tested out an a6300 due to one of your previous videos. I loved it but I was looking for a specific type of cam for a current project I'm working on. I've gone full circle and am picking up an a6500 this week. Back to your video... It looks great, a nice clean image and the af is great. Side by side with the a6300 bts footage, I'm unsure the 5d4 is any better? Both lack that magic quality of the 5d3 raw, but both would do for almost any indie film. I have finally settled on a similar path... the a6500 for 4K, IBIS and PDAF and a BMPCC for that prores or raw goodness. Thanks for posting this, it was a blast to watch!!!

I got my GH4 from amazon.co.uk and it can switch without problems I don't think that pana will block this in GH5.

Been shooting with the XT2 for the last two months after shooting with Sony and the NX1 recently, not sure what good ergos are if you consider the XT2 bad, and it completely outclasses anything Sony has in the same class. How are manual control dials for ISO, SS, and aperture bad, along with a better EVF and LCD than most of the competition? Plus the menus are logically organized and you can group anything that can't be included in the Q menu or placed on a custom button in the "My Menu" menu. Custom WB's are much easier than Sony too. But Sony wrote the book on poor usability, so they're easy to pick on.

With the gh5 and the new Sonys that are bound to appear BMD cannot afford to stand still,nor we want them to... Software for a camera is an evolving process

Looks great. I really considered this camera. What do you think it'd be like for a bit of run and gun? The only thing I don't like is the lack of stabilisation. But you gotta give it to this camera, the colour is outstanding.