Policar

6720/4096=1.64 which isn't just less than 1.91. It's less than 1.7, counting rounding error. But the whole crop business is speculation. I have no idea if it's true or not. I don't know where people are getting this information. An 11-16mm is already a 17mm FF equivalent, anyway. Even if you were right, a 21mm FF equivalent is about 13mm on Super35, wider than the VAST majority of cinema lenses, for which even 18mm is considered an ultra wide. Anyhow, I'm not buying this in part because I can't afford it right now. If it doesn't meet your needs, you can buy something else. But the need for an ultra ultra wide is esoteric, and your math is wrong to begin with. And we don't know if it's a crop or not anyway... I dunno, the weird codec seems like a bigger issue to me tbh.

You can't light everything with a batten strip but they are used on everything even the most expensive productions. Big Chinese lanterns, too. The "style" is less light now. You can get by with a few LEDs and LED strips and bounce and neg and diff most of the time. It really depends on the style you want, though, more than anything. Hard light will be a challenge with cheap units but it also isn't trendy, anyway.

I can actually relate. If you're working and making money that's what counts, I think.

I could shoot on a GH4 and the image would be fine, but why would I when I get paid to shoot on the Alexa? I didn't see that article. I was told by my friends who were G&E on Social Network. But if you have a link to it I'm sure it's interesting. The Dragon is fine, though, nothing wrong with it for those of us whose mom can't afford the Mini. I agree, rent both for a shoot each. Buy whatever makes you more money without driving you nuts. It's a business after all, but there's a reason the Alexa costs more and rents more despite it–because it saves money in other areas. Oh, and the image is better. The Dragon is fine, though. Up until the Mini ate into its market, it was even good enough to be a popular Alexa b camera! Back on topic, though, I'm sure the Raven is fine and delivers a good image for the money.

As a shooter, I mostly am. I've shot a few promos for NCB affiliates and some corporate stuff and videography and second unit on a lot of stuff for web and cable, but it's a small portion of what I do. Since I couldn't pay the bills on that alone, I'll agree I'm a hobbyist. l In post, not so much. And my clients (CBS–for which I've worked on major network series not web promos or something, ABC/Disney, Time Warner, most NBC Affiliates, etc. for broadcast as well as ads for Fortune 500 companies including major national campaigns... plus all the jobs where I didn't get hired but interviewed such as at other major networks on major primetime shows) aren't. And 99% of that content is Alexa-derived. Most blockbusters still have the majority of their vfx finished at 2k so the 4k thing in the same sentence as "blockbusters" is a straw man if I ever saw one. What are your credits that supersede the vast plurality of blockbusters and of Oscar-nominees, mostly shot on Alexa. What are your credits that supersede the relatively low end stuff I work on (major network series, all shot on Alexa). You do realize that "Netflix" isn't a person and that David Fincher is working with Red due to an established relationship he has with its CEO (who custom built him stripped down carbon fiber MX frames in three days so he could shoot the rowing scene in Social Network, and fwiw I think it's awesome that Red did that). I looked your name up on IMDb and couldn't find anything. Almost all the top DPs are shooting Alexa and almost all tv is finishing on it, Netflix and Fincher are exceptions that prove the rule. Are you seriously claiming that 80% of the industry are "hobbyists" or are you just gloating that you got your first paying gig on the Red your mom bought you?

That has a bit of the Red "look" still but looks great. Much better than the other piece. While I stand by my opinion that the fashion piece looks like hot garbage, there are some basic things that are done/emulated well, the clean image among them. Absolutely the Dragon looks best rated at 200-400 ISO. The best looking Dragon footage is shot at a low ISO with tons of fill light to avoid clipping and then aggressively graded. The resultant look is usually very clean with remarkable shadow detail and not so much highlight detail, a bit more saturation in the midtones than the Alexa but still none of the chroma clipping that plagues the Sonys. "Digital" without looking like miniDV. The Alexa, by contrast, has more "film like" color, as well as a definitively more film like over/under and grain distribution and saturation vs luma distribution (emulating color negative very accurately by clamping situation at 30 IRE, something emulated by Canon in SLOG 2 and Sony in their Kodak F5/5 LUTs). I think if you grew up on "film" you automatically like the Alexa more because it is in every way a film emulation camera, but if you like lots of shadow detail and a smooth tonality with more accurate, less rich colors, the Red looks fine and the weird workflow appeals to people who are less lazy than me. On the flip side, the Alexa behaves like 50 speed Vision 3 that's actually 800+ ISO. As clean as 50 speed but four stops faster. So there's this tendency to throw on an anamorphic lens and not light anything and while it looks good and even "film like" the overlit Red look can be a nice change of pace. Some of the very high end music videos shot on Red have their own look to them, they look great, and with enough patience (and fill light) you can try to emulate that at home with a cheaper Red camera.

They got the model right, but this video looks like shit from an aesthetic and technical perspective.

The Red is a divisive camera. Rent one before you buy one.

Interesting. I've been working (in post) on ads and network tv this year and so far it has all been Alexa. But I know Netflix won't accept Alexa. I find it the easiest image to work with in post by far. The C300 Mk II really should be a lot better post-firmware update and at 13k it's a great deal. Most of my friends are not high end shooters, they have gone the C300 path, and they're working for Vice, etc. and still making really good livings. They got into the game later than the Red owners I know. That said, Red user is proof positive of how well that investment worked out for a substantial plurality of people.

Wow, that's really awful. Are you sure you're managing your super whites correctly? There doesn't appear to be any detail recovered by the LUT. Try with curves and lift/gamma/gain, anything happening before the LUT. If the LUT is working in RGB, maybe it's losing the extra detail in the YUV to RGB step. I wouldn't blame the camera for such poor performance before looking at the node tree and seeing if the LUT is recognizing super whites.

I agree with everything you wrote. For $13k I would get a C300 Mk II (post-firmware update it should be much better than it is currently–I have an acquaintance on the ACES board who mentioned to me it has been upgraded substantially with the new firmware for no more sensor banding and for reduced noise), but since your needs are specifically for slow motion I can't recommend that. And your budget seems to be around $13k so I can't recommend buying an Alexa Mini as it is three times the price. However, I agree it is the best "all around" owner/op or production camera available and by no small margin. However, Red users seem to love their Reds, and most of them are very successful pros, whereas this forum is mostly hobbyists. It is interesting to go to Red user and see so many people making a living off their expensive cameras (anecdotally, my friends who went this route are all making six to seven figures a year), whereas very few Alexa owners seem to pay back the investment quickly. The Alexa owner/op path is surprisingly uncommon.

People who own Reds really seem to like them. Rent one first, my preference for the Alexa has to do with me working in post and not likely the Red workflow. Most shooters couldn't care less. From that perspective it might be a good call at the price. The crop doesn't seem too extreme, there are good wide lenses out there.

In my experience it's nosier than the MX with better highlight exposure latitude. Nicer color when exposed properly, though. And definitely better exposure attitude. Not the huge upgrade it was hyped up to be. I think a lot of the confusion has to do with there being so many OLPFs. Different ones have more or less noise, exposure latitude, better or worse color and sensor artifacts. Anyhow, I'd take the Alexa Mini over it any day and the rental prices aren't so far apart ($300/day for a Dragon, $500/day for an Alexa). When lit brightly and exposed at low ISOs with great care to avoid clipping (exposed at like 200-400 ISO) and graded at a high end shop, the image can look really beautiful.

You can always do h264 for clients and RAW for personal projects. I found the RAW workflow unwieldily but I used it for an insert in one paid shoot even. There's always the FS100 (with an adapter) or C100. Good cameras for the price.

No need. The Mark III has virtually no aliasing. Not an issue with that camera. I think it's unique among Canon dSLRs in that respect. The flip side is the image is pretty soft out of camera. Same resolution as other Canon cameras, no more, and without aliasing it can look even softer. Really only an issue for wide shots, but you'll notice it in wides for sure. Raw improves this dramatically. But for web it's still a great camera. Even for projection it holds up.

The recorders are recording prores, not raw. With Canon dSLRs, the image quality is not appreciably improved by using an external recorder. The footage is immediately transcoded to prores, though, so yes it can save time and money in post. ML raw, however, is a BIG upgrade in image quality. We're talking DR impressively close to a C300 or Red MX and resolution that's not that much worse. Plus great tonality and more flexibility in post. The external recorder doesn't provide a meaningful improvement in image quality, at best imperceptibly reduced macro blocking. This isn't the case with a C500, of course.

From what I understand it does not. Canon seems to have rushed this one out the door.

I heard from someone who knows some things that this is a big improvement. Fixed shadow noise and sensor banding, which is an issue Canon tried to ignore existed. This and the $11,999 price point might bring the camera to the level it was promised to be at.

I wish, I just like the tone. It's a pretty accomplished short. Played to acclaim at Sundance and other major festivals, great cast and crew. Apparently the lead actress is reading Chris Evans (Captain America) now, so that's pretty crazy but pretty irrelevant.

Thanks, that's really thoughtful. This short is a lot better (and a lot different, stronger performances), but I think it's sort of a similar idea just done professionally: https://vimeo.com/98601226 I did get the note that it as too long. For the woods exteriors, we just had nice light. We actually added grain. The grade was really simple. Shot neutral and then just warmed it up a bit. The snow and overcast light give you a pretty flat image to capture if you just let the skies blow out. I shot in the same area later without snow and in direct sunlight and it was a challenge to expose well. I think the lenses were the 18-55mm II and 55-250mm II for that sequence. We just had good luck on light and when we didn't we waited on better light. It's mostly close ups of people and that camera makes people look good.

I was given the same advice from a festival programmer who recommended I cut my stuff down. But festivals are just one route. There are lots of online venues. You're right, but it's also the filmmaker's job to do research into the festival. Eh, forget the AF100. Get an XC10 or a C100. Also, get a book on the aesthetics of color grading. Most of the grades I see here are hideous.

Thanks, yeah it was pretty surprising, even the festival that accepted Napoleon Dynamite (the short) called and said they thought it was too edgy for any festival, which it really isn't. On Cinema5D we got an even much more negative response, I think the most negative in the site's history (1/5 stars for every vote) and I thought the technical aspects at the very least were good, which is what that site was about. Remember, this was 5 years ago and the t2i had just recently come out. I can't say I thought as much about the acting lol. Maybe I'll resubmit it; five years later I've gotten a better response. The t2i has a great looking image but it is technically just bad and soft and you're not going to get nice wide shots. I was used to the dvx and 16mm tri-x then so at the time it felt like a miracle, though. I still get why filmmakers on youtube love these camera, people and places look good with them with basic settings, mixed light is not so bad, easy to use without having to rig anything else up. But I spent a long time in post reducing rolling shutter and aliasing. I personally think the AF100 would have been harder to use with just one person, but the image is much much sharper with the camera.

Thanks, yeah that's what we were going for. I wrote, directed, shot, cut, etc. We had a boom pole operator some days but for the most part it was a one-man-band. I posted this when I made it (six years ago) and it got a negative reply, but people seem to like it more now. Thanks! The second part gets weird but a lot more visual. We shot it on a t2i and mostly the 18-55mm and 55-250mm plastic lenses, a few scenes with Nikkor lenses.

It's okay guys. I can take criticism. I'm working on a second and third short film now so I just want some feedback before I dip my feet back in the water. Thanks so much.

A few years old but would like feedback. We worked hard on it. Thanks!