Policar

It depends what you're after. Burger King is still king if you're after a burger worse than MacDonald's but still sort of edible. I feel that the Alexa is indisputably the best general purpose A camera still, but others surpass it (some far surpass it) in specific respects that might tip one's choice in another direction. But yeah, there are so many ways the Alexa is ahead of everything else in terms of look, workflow, reliability, and Arri Log's saturation/gamma curves that it's taken a while for anything to catch up and nothing has. That said, remarkably few of its strengths can't be faked cheaply with some ingenuity. Professional tools are largely built on reliability and ease of use, but they also require a larger crew to operate but also need to move faster because time is money. One really talented person with a (good) dSLR can do a lot more than one really talented person with an Alexa or Red IMO. But you'd need to be REALLY talented. Remember, Mad Max was using 5D Mark IIs. The image quality wasn't great, but the images were. The F35 is nice, but it's not even in the same league in terms of DR. Good color, though, very very sharp 1080p. The F35 and C300 have the sharpest 1080p, but due to how they interpolate by skipping Bayer. Film competes with the Alexa but not for workflow, it's even harder to use. I've worked with the Alexa regularly since it was released and nothing has yet to convince me I want to work with anything else. But I work in post, and when I shoot personal videos without much money I always choose a smaller camera. There's this myth that not having the best camera is getting in the way. That's so wrong. The best camera–say, an IMAX camera–gets in the way the most. The worst camera, say a dSLR or a go pro, gets in the way the least, and lets you focus on content. So yeah, the Alexa is best still. But if you're seriously thinking of using one, you'll have the money to run tests hopefully to determine if it's best for your needs. The GH4 and C100 get shockingly close for much less money. The A7SII gets WAY better for low light, and with a good grade and an A7SII you could blow away even Alexa owners. Too bad the colors and codec need work.

Who are they useless to? They're there. Why are they useless? I don't understand. They're noisy... I guess. But there's no such metric as "useful" vs "not useful." And in this case, so long as I was okay with a bit of noise noise or I did some NR or I exposed normally and left the shadow sin the shadows, those last three stops would be useful. I'm not even posting for your benefit anymore, it's fine for you to use this wrong system because you're using it internally consistently, I'm just posting because there's this myth that's running rampant than those figures are worth a damn. Obviously run your own tests before buying, but before that listen to math and to reason. As for the SNR conversion, I couldn't speak to that, but if you're using the same "math" you've used throughout this thread, I wouldn't care to try.

Here's an "interpretation" of 2+2. It equals 5. The fact is, you're feeding into idiotic information slavishly. You're either an idiot times two or a troll. Or so self-absorbed that you'd rather support the dumbest argument I've ever read on the internet (and I've read countless youtube comments) than admit you're wrong. I'm not hurling personal insults. I'm not saying you're dumb (though the only other conclusion is self-absorbed asshole). Just that what you're writing is either the stupidest thing I've ever read on here or a spot-on impression. How the fuck is Cinema5D an "industry technician." They're a troll. ASC members, the BBC, etc., and ANY reputable source including Canon defending itself in detail supports their 15 stop claims. How are Canon and Sony's claims "baseless"? They're arrived at through careful tests... such as the tests at Cinema5D that fully support them until they're willfully misinterpreted by a site owner who's a troll. The charts they post COMPLETELY support manufacturer claims until they invent an entirely different metric that's just arbitrary. The images from the tests show 14-15 stops of DR. It's like... how can you deny that? You'd have to invent a whole other system unless you're willfully trolling... Maybe you need more than 14-15 stops and that's fine, but denying what's obviously true is another story than needing the best of the best. I'm not hurling insults, I'm just saying there are two possibilities: you're either the dumbest person I've ever had the misfortune to communicate with and the most self-absorbed–or you're a parody of that person, a good impersonation of a complete idiot. Personally, I don't care. I don't shoot video professionally anymore and the stuff I shoot for fun has pretty limited needs. Chivo needs every stop of DR he can get and for him the Alexa provides that and that's great. I didn't need that. If you do and you're a brilliant DP on his level, I respect that, but at that point you should be running your own tests. I have no issue with you and I suppose that since you care so much about this you must be someone whose technical needs are pretty extreme and you're probably a very brilliant shooter. That's fine. But I see people being willfully moronic on the internet and it upsets my sense of justice. And your arguments are so fucking dumb. You are either the dumbest person I've ever encountered on any forum, or the most self-absorbed. Either way, it's fine, it's up to you, but please don't spread misinformation. If you're not being snide you're being self absorbed and if you're neither of those you're very stupid. Rise above that. The facts are the facts. Beyond that are trolls. White supremacists shake things up. Flat earthers shake things up. Shaking things up is no victory on its own.

Are you willfully ignorant or actually just really dumb? Those charts show 14+ stops nearly 15 for the FS7 and 15 for the C300 Mk II. 15+ for the Alexa, the same as their current market reps will claim (fwiw, their claim was always 14+ and 16 is still 14+). Sony claims 14. Canon 15. They aren't exaggerating anything and the charts you linked to prove it. Yes, Arri understates their DR claims, that's been known forever. There's no controversy. The earth is still round. Cinema5d is still full of shit. You can't just make up a fake metric, define it arbitrarily, and measure manufacturers against that fake metric like it means anything. I mean you can, but it's a huge waste of time and no one should care about it. What's funny is both the FS7 and C300 Mk II charts show what the reps claim, and then Cinema5D just draws a line somewhere random and tries to start a controversy to generate hits (and it's working because people like you take their bullshit seriously). On what sane, intelligent basis do you think Canon or Sony are exaggerating?

No, it's not. It's no better than someone starting a controversy over the earth being flat or something equally dumb. They are repeating inaccurate information and presenting it as fact, that's why they're making people angry. Being "controversial" doesn't always make you right; in this case the controversy is over the fact that they won't stop using a really dumb methodology and offering inaccurate figures. That said, if you read deeper and actually examine the charts for yourself, you can see that most manufacturer's specs are pretty much spot on, and Arri is performing above spec. So the charts themselves are useful. No one's stopping you from thinking the earth is flat. Just don't expect others to respect you for it or be impressed by the controversy you've generated.

The last part makes sense to me. I always thought that, though I'm no expert. Fwiw, a friend just bought an Alexa Mini and his Arri rep confirmed that their latest sensors and firmware can capture 15+ stops, but Arri sticks to 14+ stops for its marketing so as not to confuse things. The original C300 has no more than 12 stops, but the C300 Mk II certainly does, as every proper demonstration as shown: http://www.newsshooter.com/2016/02/18/alan-roberts-tests-the-canon-c300-mkii-finds-15-stops-of-dynamic-range-and-says-it-meets-ebu-tier-1-standard-for-hd-and-tier-2-for-4k/ https://joachimhedenworkblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/22/some-dynamic-range-tests/ The Alexa is still peerless, I'm not saying it isn't. Just that cinema5d is terrible.

Why would the RAW recording have more dynamic range than the raster signal? That isn't the case with most high end cinema cameras. Is the C300 Mk II's pipeline broken in a way the Alexa and C500's isn't (both of them have equal DR in RAW and raster). I have only used the C500 and Alexa and would be upset to learn Canon screwed up their new camera. Why does Cinema5D choose to willfully misinterpret the xyla chart? The C300 Mk II has visibly and substantially more DR, perhaps a stop, than the Sony and both have about what is advertised (14 and 15 stops, respectively), whereas the Alexa surpasses 15 stops, which is about right. This whole thing is just beyond me. It seems so simple but there are all these complications that I don't understand. All three read as having great DR. Looking at more of their tests, they give the 5D Mark III better DR than the C300, which is very far off base, simply because the codec smudges the noise. The C300 has way more DR. Their measurements are completely inconsistent, but I suppose I just don't understand how they differentiate between "usable" and "actual." I try not to worry about this stuff, but it still confuses me.

All of that's over my head. I still think Trick Shot looks like garbage.

I agree. Larger formats are getting more and more popular and the larger the format the more "character" lenses actually look better than contemporary ones. First it was all the Nikkors, superspeeds, panchros, next anamorphic, etc. An affordable 645 let alone 6x7 sensor is a ways away but I think when it's available V mount lenses will be a hot commodity. Medium format speed boosters are dumb IMO but that will contribute as well.

Not all of us are trying to make spy videos of our neighborhood coffee shop.

Cinema5D's testing methodology is a joke. Every reputable source has rated the C300 Mk II as 14-15 stops in Canon Log 2 but with the caveat of noisy shadows. Apples-to-inaccurate-apples, what's that site's rating on the 1DC? I'd guess 10-11 stops. What's their rating of the C300 (a legit 12)? Or the 5D (8-9)? I'm guessing something inaccurate. Granted, the Alexa's current generation sensor and firmware has well surpassed 15 stops and Arri reps will privately confirm it, so the Alexa does have better DR and cleaner shadows than anything else. A friend just picked the Alexa Mini over the C300 Mk II and his DR tests just blow my mind. I dropped out of my math major so all the bits and stuff don't really mean anything to me, just not my strength. What does 14 stop with RAW recovery mean? How does a RAW recovery relate to a stop of DR? I never studied image formats. Accurate comparisons of the C300 Mk II and Alexa show that the Alexa has a worse SNR in the highlights, slightly better in the mids, and far better in the shadows, but that despite very noisy shadows relative to the Alexa, the C300 Mk II (which is also far far cleaner at high ISOs than the Alexa, a common trade off) technically captures nearly as wide a spread of information. It's just not as pretty in the shadows, much more noise there. But a properly exposed image wouldn't emphasize this part of the curve in either camera, so the difference in noise would be minor, but the detail still present in most properly shot and graded material. Of course, you're right, this is all irrelevant because what matters are your given needs. If you find noise in the shadows (even if there's still detail there) loathsome like the above test does, then you'd make the same subjective call, but call it what it is–subjective. But his cut off point is totally arbitrary and the test is pretty meaningless. Fwiw, the A7S (haven't used the A7SII) does have great DR (but also not up to Sony's claim of 15.3 stops or whatever), while the the F5 (haven't used the FS7, but same sensor) I remember having more than the C300, Red Epic, or any dSLR. Sony's 14 stop claims on its cinema line are fairly accurate, it's just a shame the image doesn't look better than it does. But then again, that's also a subjective call. I also think dynamic range needs are overrated on lower end productions, and that the above video looks awful, but that's another story.

Your claim that the 1DC and C300 Mk II have equal DR makes your posting history seem specious. Talk about picking and choosing methodologies to forward an inaccurate narrative. The C300 Mk III kills in DR when measured properly. That said, there are so many awesome options now. It really does boil down to individual need. Or whether you can afford an Alexa or not.

I've only tried the Fotga DP 500 II S. It seemed to work similarly well to high end compact units (Arri and O'Connor) for most lenses, very little backlash and and no play. But it fell apart a bit over time. For the price I think it's about as good as you'll get. I haven't tried the cheaper one. I recently switched to the DJI Wireless Focus, so haven't used anything too new.

We used a P+S disposable film camera like you get at the pharmacy then shot 16mm Tri-X (b&w) to focus on composition. Not sure if it worked or not.

Surprisingly good, yeah. Not the best build quality, won't last, but while it does it's surprisingly good.

Super inventive, but I think any lenses with a floating element will suffer at close focus as the floating element won't move in this configuration. And the quality of the AF is yet to be determined. Still... could be really cool for the right person if it works well.

I have a used AT4073a I'll sell cheap. Personally I prefer my 416 and don't find the AT to be less "unforgiving" but it's super good for the money, in the same league just very directional and hot (also can be a good thing). It's so hot it can help with bad preamps, too. Look into the F8. That seems to be where it's at if you can't afford SD/Zaxcom. I wouldn't consider anything else at that price point.

A Walmart spot costs about $1 million. They can afford anamorphic. This is interesting. I dismissed 4k because when I watch a 2k DCP it looks fine. I saw Captain America on the best screen in America (no, really) and even up close it looked fine at "Alexa fake 4k" or whatever the majority of their cameras were shooting. But this proves there's an actual interest for the format, and for the wide shots it seems to matter. It's funny hearing people moan about their smartphone or Canon dSLR lacking 4k when the Revenant, for instance, was 60% upscaled from something less. And if you want that resolution, the Sony 6300 provides it now. But this proves there's a demand even at the high end. A huge demand. I am considering holding off on buying an 80D and waiting for a 5D Mark IV. I mean I'll probably buy neither, my SL1 is fine.

The iMac is really capable. I find my 2013 rMBP a lot faster than the old Mac Pro towers (just less RAM) and the top of the line iMac is a lot faster than that and pretty close to the trash can. The 5k screen is nice if you shoot 4k; I don't. But I'd get a color correction monitor, too, as it has gamma weirdness that needs to be accounted for if you're going to broadcast. For web use it's fine, just watch your preview LUT settings in Resolve. For my needs (After Effects, Final Cut, Photoshop occasional basic 3D) I don't find the difference in price worth the slight difference in performance. For really heavy 3D... well, I'd just use a PC. Definitely a big fan of the iMacs from a price/performance standpoint. Even if I cut 20% off my slowest renders, I can do those overnight so it's not a big issue and I've never been slowed down in a really significant way. The iMac is a better user experience and value, I find the returns diminish quickly with the current Mac Pro, which needs an update, but is still faster for some tasks. That said, I'll often work on multiple machines at once. Both will completely blow away your tower for speed, no comparison, night and day. My next computer will probably be another rMBP, if they allow 32GB RAM then sure, but it seems Apple is taking a more consumer-oriented direction.

Yeah I don't see the problem with the Canon unless you hate a bit of CA or really need a slightly better focus ring. The 6D is basically between 720p and 480p, wide open resolution is pretty much not that big an issue and video isn't for AF, either, but the focus ring could be. I dunno, it seems really nice to me.

In my experience it sees it in float mode but not 8 bit or 16 bit. But float mode is quirky. Something to do with YUV to RGB conversion. Not sure. Not important if you're not using it, either.

Based on your above example, I got it backwards. I'd go with whatever pushes down the super whites so you can keep them when you go to After Effects etc.

Unless you're flying an Alexa Mini and need that last bit of highlight detail (like in the Revenant or something) I think you'd be foolish not to go with the X5R. The smaller platform is more stable. Lots of price/performance there, too–I expect the image to be competitive with anything up to and included the Dragon–but with less flexibility in terms of lens changes. But if you need to buy a new A camera, too, and are already getting a Ronin MX for it, then maybe it becomes less obvious a choice. Also, the Osmo and Z axis would be amazing.

Whether they can or not, they won't. A lot of people are still really happy with their current Canon equipment because they care less about image quality and have lower end needs. I've had my C100 since it was released and all I wish it did better was highlight dynamic range and internal codec. Most of the people I work with are low end users ($600-$1000/day, low six figure/year) so for them the extra cost of higher end storage isn't worth it. Editing in 4k is a LOT more expensive than 2k. For higher end users, I think most people I know go for an Alexa and attempt to raise their rate accordingly, but I get the frustration with camera size and battery life. An Alexa Mini that required less rigging and was actually affordable would be everyone's dream (though I suppose I only need 2k, whereas you'd want 4k+, but its internal 4k upscale isn't terrible). Unfortunately your needs exceed those of most and the market bears what it bears. We're dragging you down, sorry. I would just up your rate and try to afford an Alexa Mini.

You'd be surprised how low it is under Modified and Ultra Low Budget contracts. I've worked with a group of pretty big names making under $200/day on a feature produced by an A-lister under Modified low budget. Ultra Low Budget you can get away with deferred pay (no pay). And how high it is for ads ($50k+/day for background including residuals on major spots). There's also always non-union. Most non union actors will work for a couple hundred dollars a day to have something for their reel.