Leaderboard

I'm going to disagree with all the sentiments in this thread and recommend something different. Go rent an Alexa. For practical purposes, maybe an Alexa Mini. Talk to your local rental houses and see if there's a timeframe you can rent one and get a big discount, often rental houses are happy to give you a discount if you're renting it when the camera wouldn't be rented by anyone else so have a chat with them. Shoot with it a lot. Shoot as much as you can and in as many situations as you can. Just get one lens with it then take it out and shoot. Shoot in the various modes it has, shoot into the sun and away from it. Shoot indoors. Shoot high-key and shoot low key. Then take the camera back and grade the footage. I suspect you won't do this. It's expensive and a cinema camera like an Alexa is a PITA unless you have used one before. So I'll skip to the end with what I think you'll find. The footage won't look great. The footage will remind you of footage from lesser cameras. You will wonder what happened and if you're processing the footage correctly. I have never shot with an Alexa, but I am told by many pros that if you don't know what you're doing, Alexa footage will look just as much like a home video as from almost any other camera. Cinematic is a word that doesn't even really have any meaning in this context. It really just means 'of the cinema' and there's probably been enough films shot and shown in cinemas on iPhones that now an iPhone technically qualifies as being 'cinematic'. Yes, i'm being slightly tongue-in-cheek here, but the point remains that the word doesn't have any useful meaning here. Yes, images that are shown in the cinema typically look spectacular. Most of this is location choice, set design, hair, costume, makeup, lighting, haze, blocking, and the many other things that go into creating the light that goes through the lens and into the camera. That doesn't mean that the camera doesn't matter. We all have tastes, looks we like and looks we don't, it's just that the word 'cinematic' is about as useful as the word 'lovely' - we all know it when we see it but we don't all agree on when that is. By far the more useful is to work out what aspects of image quality you are looking for: Do you like the look of film? If so, which film stocks? What resolution? Some people suggest that 1080p is the most cinematic, whereas some argue that film was much higher resolution than 4K or even 8K. What about colour? The Alexa has spectacular colour, so does RED. But neither one will give you good colour easily, and neither will give you great colour - great colour requires great production design, great lighting, great camera colour science, and great colour grading. By the way - Canon also has great colour, so does Nikon, and other brands too. You don't hear photographers wishing their 5D or D800 had colour science like in the movies. What lenses do you like? Sharp? Softer? High-contrast? Low contrast? What about chromatic aberation? and what about the corners - do you like a bit of vignetting or softness or field curvature? Bokeh shape? dare I mention anamorphics? But there is an alternative - it doesn't require learning what you like and how to get it, it doesn't require the careful weighting of priorities, and it's a safer option. Buy an ARRI Alexa LF and full set of Zeiss Master Primes. That way you will know that you have the most cinematic camera money can buy, and no-one would argue based on their preferences. You still wouldn't get the images you're after because the cinematic look requires an enormous team and hundreds of thousands of dollars (think about it - why would people pay for these things if they could get those images without all these people?) but there will be no doubt that you have the most cinematic camera that money can buy. I'd suggest Panavision, but they're the best cameras that money can't buy.

Today's AF test, posted below, but otherwise I ain't saying nothing at this time other than...pretty much SOOC, lockdown scruffy beard, mostly making a muppet of myself. We are only interested in the actual AF and whether there is any pulsing and not the colour or if it's 'cinematic as fuck' etc. Password = EOSHD

Given the recent article by @Andrew Reid I just spotted this vid and thought it may be of interest here:

Much smarter for them to sell 100s of millions of (maybe billions?) of smartphone components than probably single digit millions of DSLR style mirrorless camera. However, they showed that even to this day it seems the camera companies are holding back on all fronts.

Take the size of the film camera market today That will be size of digital camera market in 10 years 🙂

I wouldn't compare it to SLOG as its not a log curve. Though its a nice flat profile, designed for 8 bit unlike SLOG which doesn't really work with 8 bit IMHO. I think the Z6 is a fantastic buy for the money.

I think the panasonic s5 is the best price/quality hybrid atm.

Oh and PS: after the AF video, there are the 3 most recent mini-commercial/promo pieces I shot on the S5 for various local artisans just prior to Lockdown 2 here in France if you are interested.

Like previous years I put my Christmas greetings. Gh5 and Rokinon 35mm anamorfaked (thanks Tito) Merry Christmas!!

I think we all pretty much have different opinions on what "cinematic" means. As for a7S III, I like the look in the samples of the Arri Lut (see video below), and also couldn't one shoot in RAW on a Ninja V to avoid the over-sharpening / noise reduction???

I know what you are talking about. I think it's Fuji's effort to make skin more flattering. Its actually one of the reasons I purchased my XT3. I like Fuji's film emulations but I find it difficult to get Flog to look as nice. In terms of color I will once again recommend Emotive color's Alexa luts. He makes one specific for the XT3. They have been the saving grace on my Pana S1.

Same can be said about "Proud Mary", link below. Of course these are extreme examples, with multi-million dollar budgets that allow for big productions with very expensive lenses, rigs, lighting, crews, etc. Then you have access to the best coloring and grading in post. So while it's true that it can show what the Sony sensor can do, for people here, they won't be able to get there so easily. And that's when a larger camera like the FX6/FX9 will help, with more flexibility, more I/O, etc. I think the key is to focus on flexibility when you are a one man band or a small crew. Which camera will offer you the most flexibility and make it easier to get the end results you seek. Yes they can all get there, but choose a realistic path (e.g. not the "Possession of Hannah Grace" or "Proud Mary" paths), and that will lead to the best camera choice for you personally. https://britishcinematographer.co.uk/dan-laustsen-dff-asc-proud-mary/

good job, grimor. nice that someone makes an effort 👍 oh yer .... merry christmas everyone 😀

The other downside is the a7Smk3 is a much much more expensive camera than the Panasonic S1/S5/GH5 (yet another downside... is that the a7Smk3 lacks waveform monitoring, or anamorphic support)

Hey all - I've been using the R5 extensively on a variety of shoots the past couple of months and have absolutely loved it. The AF is spot-on, the HQ 4k modes are gorgeous, the user experience is amazing, the 120fps is the best I've used outside of the C300 III. So far, I have had zero overheating issues. The timer in 4k HQ has gone down from 25-minutes to 20-minutes a couple of times, but have never had any issues. Just released last night is a music video I directed, shot, and edited. Outside of some tripod shots, I'd say 90% of the shoot was shot on the R5. Youtube compression sucks so there seems to be some artifacts, but they aren't present in the 4k ProRes export. Enjoy!

Andrew, I usually agree with most of what you publish, but this time I have to disagree, for the following reasons: 1. This move will encourage people to buy projectors, big-screen TV and audio systems for their homes. That unto itself if a big win for the industry as a whole. People will be more aware of the artistic aspect of movies by watching them on bigger screens and with better audio. This would also encourage the use of HDR. 2. Consumers should decide how they want to consume content, not studios o directors. Do note that I actually fall in the group of movie fans who prefers the theater experience (specially IMAX), but my folks and most of my friends don't think like me, and they also should be heard and decide how to spend their money. 3. Math is on the consumer side: A 75" TV a few feet away from you looks to the human eye as large as a bug movie screen because it covers a similar are of your field of vision. 4. In most markets, movie screens are usually crap save for a few places. At least in the latinamerican world, it's common to watch movies on screens with very low lumens, dark images, crappy sound, etc. We get a better experience at home in these markets. If Nolan ever visited one of these theaters he would get a heart attach and immediately understand that in these markets his movies look better at home. 5. The mp3 industry learned a huge lesson which I think carries over to movies: There was a time when most digital music was pirated, but then affordable music streaming services started popping up and now most people pay for their music. 6. I disagree that this will hurt movie bottom lines in the long term. The more people have access to same-day releases, the more people will be willing to legally pay for movies. In a small poll I ran with friends and family, most of them would pay US$20 bucks to see the latest James Bond film for example. Once people get used to it, I think most filmmakers could make *more* money than before, specially once you factor out all the savings they will get on promotion and distribution. About the only cases where people might stand to make less money us for huge blockbusters like Avengers or Star Wars, but that's a casualty of war. 7. As for piracy, whoever uses the argument that people will get access to high-quality version of movies the day after they are released online is missing the point entirely: Most people who pirate movies today are willing to see bad quality versions of these movies because what they care about is not really how good the movie looks (not saying that it is not important), but rather they care about being able to see the movie *itself* in the first place. Quality of content vs quality of imagery. If the industry wants to fight piracy they need to fight it by understanding this and releasing their movies on the exact same day on all markets worldwide so that people rush to pay to see it. They also should make these release affordable. I think US$10 is an ideal price to watch a new release, and US$20 is pushing it a bit for a blockbuster. Bottom line: I think long-term this will be seen as a great success for the industry, and the numbers will show it 5 years from now.