Leaderboard

For me when you get to post and you start messing with the files you realize why larger productions opt for an Alexa/RED. We have options now like the Raptor that only weigh 4 pounds and can be powered off a small v mount battery. I would say the Raptor dynamic range is very similar to the S35 Alexas. What it delivers over them is that it holds the dynamic range in the shadows. At 800 iso the Raptor is much cleaner than an Alexa mini, but with much less highlight retention. You can boost it to 2000 iso maybe even 3200 iso and still get a nice image. The Raptor pictured below could be rigged even smaller (smaller monitor, smaller lens, no top handle). There isn't much you can do to get an Alexa smaller though. Even the mini is 8 pounds with just the body and viewfinder and is also a powerhog. The Alexa 35 is even larger. I did a feature a couple weeks ago on the Raptor. As convenient as it is to use I think we would have been better off with an FX3. The crew was so small that any convenience is a big deal. This was our rig, I traded size for battery life. All this to say I really do notice a difference shooting with Alexa/RED But after putting the files to a REC709 colorspace and adding a lot of contrast which is what I usually end up doing, the results between that and a mirrorless can definately be hard to tell if it was shot resonably well. The truth is you can sometimes shoot things better with a mirrorless. It saves you time, which then gives you more time to fine tune the things that actually matter (lighting, composition, etc...)

I am not shooting blockbusters but I did use the FX6 on a feature earlier this year. After getting a chance to color it I think I will use it on most smaller productions going forward unless something else is requested. I might prefer a C70 over the FX6, but I do like the FX6 form factor better and the fact that is has SDI and XLR. I definately prefer the FX6 to the FX3 because the internal codec is better and I prefer not to shoot RAW. I do like having the FX30 for a dedicated gimbal cam, it is easier to rig than the FX6 if you are going for a very minimal setup. Color was all done in Filmbox.

Anamorphic wasn't made for resolution, IIRC. It was made to allow a wider image on standard 35mm film. The main uses these days for anamorphic lenses are the horizontal flares and oval bokeh, though some anamorphic systems also are said to feature shallower DOF at the same f-stop and some people say that focus rolloff is also nicer with them. As far as modern times, cropping a 4k or 6k 17:9 image to a 2.35 aspect ratio is plenty for most uses (and gives a bit more flexibility than getting it right in camera. If you really want horizontal flares, stretch some fishing line vertically over the front of the lens. You could also probably create oval bokeh by putting an oval aperture over the front or back of the lens (though the fishing line and weirdly-placed aperture will result in some other visual artifacts). Mostly, shoot anamorphic if you or your customer want it/like the look. Otherwise, there's no purpose/need.

Yes, that is all why I said that it's already been discussed to death and is well-understood. Use a decent codec if you want to shoot 24p and pan/tilt.

I guess we still have the mistery about how makes the 25mp sensor of the GH6/7 and G9Mk II? In the launch, Panasonic hinted that it was supplied by a "unusual party", if I remember correctly.

A cajun band here in town (Montréal) asked me to shoot some video of them at an unplugged street concert last Sunday. The weather was dodgy, with thunderstorms in the forecast, and they just made it through their first set when the first drops of rain began to fall. But I managed to get some footage; they asked me to do a 1-minute compilation and a 3-minute video (which I'm still working on). Here's the 1-minute version, shot on BMMCC with Angénieux 17.5-70mm zoom.

I agree - including being made in wide-screen 'cinema' aspect ratios. I'm not so keen on some of the HDR stuff, though - even in subdued lighting, searing whites and crushed shadow detail isn't much of an improvement over SDR video. Now that almost everything is captured using video cameras (excepting the occasional actual 'film' production - but even those normally end up digitizing the negatives, so it basically becomes video with an embedded film-emulation LUT 😉), the only real difference is the size of the production budget. Way back when cinemas were the dominant form of recorded visual entertainment, they ran 'serials' as well (often as fillers between the main features) - for the same reason as TV does, to keep people coming back for the next episode... I'm just about old enough to remember when evening programs at my local cinema consisted of two different movies with an episode of a serial in-between (and adverts) - not so different to an evening watching TV really.

Love the EF 40mm f2.8 pancake. It lives on my R5C for basic run n gun and gimbal stuff.

GH7 always looks noticeably different in these tests. I'd imagine the white balance isn't the same as an Alexa's. Maybe it's also IR filtration.