Leaderboard

I don't see any point in getting an Alexa ever. No IBIS and no AF... total waste of time.

It's not even 4K. I mean hellooooooo... 2012 called and wants it's camera back!

I just wish they would place that sensor in a dslr/mirrorless body at an affordable price.

I should also add that we almost never see Alexa footage that hasn't been shot with hit-end glass, and hasn't been professionally lit, directed, and colour graded. The RAW footage I have seen often shares some of the tendencies that other cameras have, like the notorious green tint that it's famous for with colourists, but that you never see in final footage.

@OttoV Awesome, another F3 owner. You can match the F3 to the 5D. The ooc colour palette via Slog to rec709 and of the other profiles is different. But with Hue vs hue anything hue vs sat in Davinci Resolve anything is possible. I think a Sony A6000 would be much cheaper but then 5D3 is a great cam itself. You have to pay for the update. Mine had it already installed and the RGB 444. The latter one making it possible to record 50p 10bit 422 via one single sdi cable to a cheapo Black Magic Videoassist. The image from this camera is "true cinema". For me it is like a BMCC from blackmagic but with 10bit 50p, beautiful lowlight, internal NDs, great battery life. I recommend it though I have not used mine yet. But I am hyper exited to put it through its paces once my other weird shortfilms are done with editing. 🙂 I have a FS700 too, but it is the F3 which really exites me. I think there is a pleasing amount of info on the net about this camera. Check out the dvxuser threads, which have been mentioned in this thread before. The Cinealta lenses come in two flavours, the first one is plastic fantastic, the follow up lenses are sturdier. The are some nice reads on these lenses in the web.As for 18mm Zeiss, I think a Zeiss ZE or ZF could be another and cheaper option. Keep us posted. We need to make this the most exiting thread on this forum!:) cheers The image quality is really something. Check this one out. Even in 720p stream it looks awesome, motion colours, textures, "weight to the image", beautiful. This camera is rising in prices now, so better get yours with the 444 update for 24 to 50p 10bit glory to an external recorder or even 444 24p to an Odyssey or Videopix. Also adapter to NIkon or EF would be nice. Mine came with PL and Nikon adapter. The here is the video, I just mentioned. cheers

Although I wish the BMMCC had a small monitor on the top like the Komodo, I still prefer it over the BMPCC. I usually shoot ProRes, but I like that it has the 3:1 compressed raw and the 60p. The miniature cinema camera form factor also looks kinda cool. My rig is almost complete... I may eventually buy a BGH1 for a similar reason, especially with the new Tilta rig for it... I'd lose the baseplate/rods and the top handle and throw a Ninja V on their for some ProRes Raw. This looks pretty good... But I digress, I kinda like the infuriating form factor of the BMMCC.

Very informative Andrew and I certainly understand your pain. Please consider posting your items directly from your site. I feel you’re overlooking just how much people appreciate you as a person and trust all that you are doing and have done for the community. I have a long-standing history with EBay and will relay your dealings as a reason for why I am stepping away from their services. Besides, every motion camera that I have ever purchased from the site arrived broken.

Both you and @elgabogomez have said that it looks like both @tupp and I have valid points and that we're trolling each other, and it's a fascinating thing. The more I think about this test, and the points that Tupp has raised and what is wrong with them, the more I realise that this test is kind of the holy grail because it involves almost every technical aspect in video, every workflow aspect, and every perceptual aspect. In fact, not only do you have to understand those, but you have to have an underlying understanding of what is actually going on behind those things. For example, there's the bayer sensor and debayering (and other sensors like X-Trans), there's colour subsampling, and there's image rescaling. If you don't understand these concepts then you can't have this conversation at all, but knowing how to talk about each of them in isolation isn't adequate either. These are all discussed in isolation in film-making, with each of them kind of talked about as being in a different place in the pipeline and for a different purpose, and the definitions of these may not give any clues that they are related, but they are. In fact, they are almost identical. They are simply different applications of the same mathematics, applied in slightly different ways. The fact that the whole image pipeline is being discussed, and in the context of resolution, means that you cannot truly understand the signal path from end to end unless you understand that these all have the same underlying mechanism. This is something I tried to explain, but it's points like this that don't fare well in a conversation where 27 things are all being discussed simultaneously. I think this is a problem that the world is experiencing in many forms - the discussion of things that are very technical and people have vested interests in. Take the example of the age of the earth. Science says that it's a few billion years old. People can react to that information in one of two ways. They can believe the scientists and just take that on face value, or they can question how this incredibly large number was derived (and they have every right to do so and being skeptical is a good thing). The problem comes when the scientists talk about carbon dating, and very quickly we find that almost no-one can wrap their head around the dozens of concepts, methods, processes and even ways of thinking that are required to understand every concept that the analysis that calculates the number is built upon, unless they have a scientific background to begin with. So the conversation goes off in 100 directions (like this thread did) and it ends with either the person believing the scientists on face value (after having seen a lot more information) or the person decides that the scientists are just baffling them with BS and they "go back to believing whatever they want to believe". A funny thing about science is that the deeper you go, it gradually splits into quantum physics and philosophy, both of which end with basically no evidence that we exist at all. There is no "bedrock" of fundamental truth, regardless of how far you dig, so ultimately it comes down to a judgement call that everyone makes. The problem then remains, how do you determine truth about a topic where the summary isn't deemed trustworthy and the analysis is too long / complex for people to understand? I think this is a problem that we haven't really found an answer for yet. Anyway, coming back to this thread, I'm happy that I understand what's going on here, I've seen enough mis-understandings on Tupp part to see where he's going beyond the limits of his technical knowledge, and I'm also backed up by Yedlin, whose writings and demos are (apart from one person posting in this thread) widely respected across the industry.

Looks great. What was the taking lens?

A few more FD stills. The internal codec shows its limitations pretty quickly, though (artifacts). Next stop: ProRes 422 external.

Thanks mate! Congrats on your Video Assist, I'm looking forward to see images 🙂 I don't have that much to show as these were my very first tests and I basically toyed around with focus and stuff but I managed to salvage a few stills that show the texture of the combo. Canon FDs S(S)C 135 and 28mm. Slog internal codec. About 6 sec. per shot in Resolve. Really, this footage grades so easily it's cheating! I like that smooth and dry feel.

I had just received some FD lenses yesterday when it started to snow so I took the F3 for a first stroll.

New Godox model that sounds promising. Supposed to be similar to the Apturure mdoels but cheaper by several hundred dollars.