jax_rox

We're saying the same thing, but I think you're referring to different things here. I agree with you - but I would say in the case of Arri lights, that's perhaps brand reliability. My Gaffer uses Arri lights because they're a damn good light and they're reliable. If Arri started making terrible lights tomorrow, he wouldn't buy Arri lights anymore. As a professional working DP, you need to be across the technology, but a professional, IMO, should use the right tool for the right job. The great thing about filmmaking is it's solely a creative endeavour - and that means you can pick the camera, format or stock that you think is going to have the best effect. That can even mean having a RED Dragon as A cam, an SR3 as a B-cam, and a C300 shooting 2nd unit if you really felt that way inclined. As long as you can back it up with a creative idea or decision, it's perfectly feasible. But as a professional, you shouldn't be closed to new ideas. If my Gaffer pitches me a light that looks incredible, and does something I've never seen from a light before but comes from China and is a no-name brand, I'll happily go with him on it if he has confidence in it. I'm not going to stipulate he only use Arri lights because I like Arri. Similarly, I'm not only going to ever use Alexas because I like Arri. I'll always be open to new ideas and new looks - even if every project I shoot this year is shot on Alexa (unlikely), it will be because I've felt that the Alexa is the right camera for the project - not just because Arri's my favourite, or because I own an Arri and feel I need to justify my expensive purchase (I don't - but you get the analogy for many RED owners). Each camera has its pros and cons and one should be across the pros and cons, rather than disregarding the cons because they like the pros so much (and in some cases dismissing the cons as if they don't matter). Also, not to take a swipe at you, but as a general comment - I can't think of anyone who takes videos of their dogs who isn't having fun at the time. That doesn't mean they should all be DPs. There is a beauty in having fun and not worrying about anything but yourself and the subject, but whilst being a DP at a fundamental level requires a love for the camera, it isn't the only pre-requisite to being a DP. I know you know this, and your story shows its possible to go from having fun shooting videos of your dog to shooting quite substantial work. However, I feel I have to caution those who may take from your story that you're advocating not needing any knowledge or experience to become a professional DP.

​It's odd - I was sure I saw a review for this camera up there months ago... I'm sure I read it before I bought mine (bought early November) and it didn't seem to be a brand new review then. I specifically remember comparing noise levels in images between the A7s and GH4... I also remember the dynamic range graphs with DRO and Slog. It seems like this is simply an updated review, with the addition of a 'filmmaker's perspective' DP Review do take a little while to get their reviews out, though they're pretty thorough and they generally only take a couple of months (from the few I've seen). The A7s didn't start shipping til mid year (July IIRC?), so really even if the review was new when I read it, it took them 3ish months - long, perhaps, but nowhere near 11 months. Could be wrong.

Another point to make is that young up and coming filmmakers and cinematographers these days focus on the wrong things - they get caught up in the mindless drivel of tech. It's important to know. But it's also not the most important thing - for a Cinematographer, but especially for filmmakers interested in other areas of filmmaking. People these days get caught up 'comparing sizes' rather than learning and experimenting with lighting and focusing on things that are much more important than whose camera is better. I've seen some incredible things shot in iPhones and DSLRs. And I've seen some absolute sh*t shot on RED, Alexa and even film!

I think it's reflective of the difference between do-ers and wanna do-ers. Those that are out there getting paid and shooting great stuff, great stories, working with professional crew... They're the ones who choose cameras based on each specific project. Who use an Alexa on one project, and RED on another. Then maybe film on another. And maybe a C500 asa B-cam. The camera that looks right and works the best for the project. They have good relationships with other key crew (i.e. Gaffers and Key Grips) who they call upon for help, and good relationships with rental houses where they get there cameras and other accessories from. They're professionals. Then there's those who are 'wanna doers' who spend all day on ain internet forum talking about what they'd do if they had the money/ability to shoot on such cameras. These are the people who are 'hobby' filmmakers - who buy the best gear they can afford, sell themselves as an owner-operator to get work, and are threatened by anyone who says that the camera sustem they have spent thousands on isn't perfect. It's perfectly acceptable to be a hobby filmmaker - I just wish that the masses who get overzealous would calm down and take a reality pill

​I'm glad there's some people shooting on the lovely Penelope still out there. Penelope's probably my favourite camera to shoot on; it's too bad they could never get the whole Delta/interchangeable mags thing happening. The battery life on the Alexa is frustratingly poor - especially when compared to film. You could easily shoot a week or more on four batteries - you'd struggle to get four hours in some cases with four batteries on an Alexa. It's a totally different look to digital - IMO it gets silly comparing them anymore, they're totally different looks. I personally love the look of film, and don't believe there is anything in the digital realm that really matches it. Sure, there are cameras that come close in terms of colour, or dynamic range, or both - but they don't look the same and realistically it's a totally different process - you're not going to get even similar images when using a single bayer sensor.

​Apart from comparing a $60k camera to a $30k camera... You simply cannot compare the look of a movie to a television show. Sure, there are television shows that look good, or even great - but the workflow and time constraints are very different between the two. I've sat in on colour sessions where we've spent what felt like a whole day deciding on the specific shade of colour for the character's tie - a luxury in both time and money that you can't afford on most television productions. In addition, you can spend whole days doing four shots when you're shooting a film. You get the luxuries to be able to make sure that absolutely everything is spot on perfect - you often have grips pre-rigging sets the day before you get in, so when you get in you can tweak and tweak until it's just so before you shoot. You don't get the same luxuries in television most of the time. I've worked on television shows where we've squeezed 10 whole scenes into one days worth of shooting. In the end, it looked pretty decent despite the time constraints, but it was nowhere near the level that we would normally be able to produce if we had the time luxury of shooting a feature. And then there's the luxury of budget - there are very few television shows that would be able to afford the projection set that Oblivion had. Plus, Marco Polo has had three DPs over 10 episodes.. Personally, the F65 doesn't do a lot for me. I tend to prefer the Alexa, but then it would depend on the script really.

Andrew - that's what colour grading is! The whole point of the Slog gamma is to be able to grade each shot and scene the way it needs to be graded. ​ You can apply a standard LogC to REC709 lut to Alexa footage and it will look more contrasty, but that doesn't mean that it will look good, or work, for every shot or every scene. Turn Picture Profiles off if you want something that's going to be okay for everything - or try Cine 3 or Cine 4. I'd love to tell my colourist that I heard of someone complaining because each scene or shot needs its own colour grade and see what she says!

Let's get a few things straight. In narrative film, your actors and actresses are generally wearing makeup. Even if it doesn't look like it, 99% of the time they have makeup on. This makes the skin tone 'issue' much less of an issue, because your actors skin will look perfect from the get-go. In addition, you test your camera or film stock and your art department can find how far they need to push the make-up, or what they need to do to get the skin looking perfect. RED has had notoriously sub-par skin tones, especially compared to the Alexa. Yet, there are many incredible looking films shot on RED. Skin tone is not the be-all end-all for a camera. I like to look at colour as a whole, and how gradeable it is. There's no point having great skin tone, if all the other colours in the shot are awful. RED Dragon is 100x better when it comes to skin tone. Personally, I hate Canon's skin tone, and find the Canon colour in general tends to be way too warm and way too oversaturated. Every camera behaves differently to colour - IMO it's more important to be aware of colour differences and be able to compensate for them if you don't have the luxury of choosing a camera on a per project basis.

​For sure. But FCP went from a professional application marketed towards a nice market, to a pro-sumer application that was able to tap into a much bigger market. And it worked, despite what everyone has said about it - I personally made the switch to Avid, and never looked back. But you can't say FCPX was a failure for Apple as it simply wasn't, despite the talk about it all over the internet and the fact that it had become much less of a professional tool.

I've been shooting with it pretty consistently over the past few weeks, and have struggled to replicate the colour issues people talk about. I've been quite happy - the colours are different to Canon, but that's part of what I like about it.

You mean the time they released a product that the internet and professionals were collectively unhappy with, and yet it sold incredibly strongly and made lots of money for Apple? The userbase may have switched from pro to pro-sumer or amateur, but it's not like they saw a major decline in number of users...

How can you possibly compare and draw conclusion from Slog to 709 footage with a colour chart? A good colourist could make the colours look as good as/better than the NX1 (or the apparently holy grail 5D). Grading Slog is more than just boosting saturation and contrast a bit..

Haha - depends on the client ;) I don't do much of that kind of work anymore, but I have friends/colleagues who do, and they tell me that as long as you shoot around f/2.8, the client will love how 'cinematic' it looks ;)

It looks nothing like film. It looks to my eye like a C100. If someone showed me the footage, I would assume it had been shot on a C100 or C300. I tried posting some images, but the forum won't let me? :/ Anyway, there's a roll of with Alexa highlights, it's not straight clip - on the 5D, even the highlights that are close to clipping are not rolled off in that way, and you end up with slabs of pure white, or near pure white. Plus, I find the Alexas colours to be more filmic - maybe I wouldn't say 'more accurate' but they're more accurate to how some film stocks would see the colours in the shot. The skin tones on Alexa are 100x better than skin tones on the 5D. I find skin tones (and colour in general) on 5D to be way too warm, and often at the expense of the other colours in the scene. That wildlife footage is quite nice, but in general, I've never seen colours from a 5D that I've absolutely loved.. They're better in raw than H.264, but not that much better Plus, I would say the Alexa has more colour gradation - it might not have the same bit-depth, but there's more colour information there, and there seems to be more shades (comparing, for example, hair). To my eye, the Alexa just looks much, much better. That's not to say the 5D isn't useable, or that it doesn't create good looking images. There are a number of issues in the 5D footage that would not be present Just that in general, the Alexa is a better camera with a better image... which is to be expected as it costs a lot more. In your video above where the 5D is compared to what I assume is 5213 and the RED Dragon, the 5D easily comes off as third best. Keep in mind, that the test is lit to within those cameras' dynamic ranges. If you remember back to the Zacuto shootout, where a whole bunch of cameras were compared, you can see that if you light to a cameras dynamic range, you can get similar looking images out of any camera. That doesn't mean a 5D is the same as an Alexa. Yes - but that is not the same as dynamic range. In practice, it's all about useable DR, and it's theoretically possible that a camera with less DR but more information captured can have the same useable DR as a camera with more DR but less information captured. I'd be interested to see someone compare useable DR on both cameras. That sunset is beautiful. But man are the colours off here. Not sure if that's a result of grading or not.. Why would we? I certainly don't want to use all available DR! I want to light my scenes to optimise them for the dynamic range of the camera - which is part of why I do camera tests. I don't necessarily want something exposed in every step of the DR! It depends on the scene - perhaps you mean that we want to keep the lighting contained within the available DR of the camera, but doing so is not always possible..? See, I don't personally think they do cut all that well and don't believe they ever have - though there are many who can't pick the difference even when comparing H.264 5D footage in big movies. I think the most important point to make is that any camera will give you a pretty good image these days if you know how to work it.. So get out there and shoot, rather than sitting talking about specs all day on the internet ;) Use what you like, what you have, what you can afford. The less time you spend attempting to justify your choice and attempting to prove that a 5D is as good as an Alexa, the more time you have to actually shoot :)

IMO, it looks very similar to what you could do relatively easily with an A7s. To my eye, it looks far from filmic - doesn't even really come close to an Alexa; maybe similar to a C100. It looks like a 5D with less compression! In regards to DR vs 14-bit - you can have as many gradations as you want, it doesn't make up for dynamic range. If you light your scene to within your dynamic range (which is something that every DP has been doing for decades - one of the main tests you would do with film was to test your latitude to see what you have to work with), then you can get good results from any camera. But if you don't light it, then extra dynamic range will always be better. If you don't clip the highlights or shadows, then your scene doesn't have enough dynamic range in it for it to matter, and in effect is the exact same as lighting to within your dynamic range.

I have to agree with this. For the most part, give a middle-range client shallow depth of field and they're happy. But there's a reason I stopped doing those sorts of gigs. For the most part, people do appreciate the quality difference even if they can't tell why they like it more. It's important in as much as you should know that you can shoot on a GH3, GH4, A7s, 5D3 et al and shoot stuff that clients are going to be happy with. But that does not mean you should not strive for better quality work in everything you do! I'd personally rather move my way up through clients than stall at a certain level because I'm happy just giving them 'good enough' images. I didn't get to shoot commercials and films from delivering images that were simply 'good enough.' Never. There are so many different ways you can light a scene, compose a shot, tell a story through the camera, - I'd go as far to say that there is no right way. Just 'ways' that are more visually pleasing to many than others. The right way is the way the Director wants/is happy with. That way may be completely at odds with what you're thinking or what you want (hopefully it isn't, but sometimes it is), but at the end of the day you're working for the Director. My tip is that there's always more to learn - it's impossible to learn it all, so embrace everything (even the terrible shoots) as a good learning experience.

This 'test' is hardly scientific. To me, this looks more like someone who doesn't really know how to test cameras, rather than the fact that the cameras are 'very close' - I've seen BMCC and BMPCC footage intercut with Alexa, and you can always tell, it generally looks terrible. I've seen SLRs and handycams that would hold up will in these 'tests' and settings. Also It doesn't really mean anything on the internet. The only place it matters is when projected on a cinema screen. You can shoot stuff on a 550D/T2i for web and it can look great. I would not want to attempt to use a T2i as my B cam. Also doesn't seem to be any mention of whether the Alexa was shooting Log-C or REC709. The blog mentions 'testing out real life situations' which none of these are. I'll never shoot anything where I don't use a single light, diffusion frame, black flag or floppy, or blacks in general, or any way of shaping the light. Reminds me of that 'test' that 'proves' the GH4 is sharper than the Epic, even though that whole test is flawed.

I've found even the most expensive PV sized Tiffen NDs have ridiculous colour shifts. Supposedly the 'water white' filters are meant to fix that, but I'm not really sure as I have no experience with them. Schneiders are better, but Formatt are supposed to be the best in terms of colour shift, and I've had good results with their Firecrest range, though it is a bit expensive.

I guess I don't understand the question. Are you asking if there's a better alternative to the GH3 for higher frame rate shooting? If you're happy with the results, then what do you want out of a new camera..?

I guess I should have prefaced that by saying - downscaling 4k RED footage to HD looked better on a cinema screen than if I had shot it in HD on RED from the start. However, it really is camera dependant - I'd rather shoot HD on Alexa than 4k on the GH4. I'd rather shoot 4k on the GH4 than HD on a Canon SLR. It's not as simple as just '4k looks better' because it isn't necessarily. As others have said - all things being equal, you could make an argument that 4k is 'better' but then there's the argument that it is more likely to bring out flaws in makeup, sets, costumes etc. Colour and dynamic range are more important to me - and tangible things that I can actually see. I like to watch images projected on to cinema screens to make my mind up about what I like. You can have the best specs in the world, but it doesn't mean you have the best looking image in the world - and that's really what matters. The F65 has an 8k sensor, which it uses to create what Sony calls a 'true' 4K image. Yet I still like the Alexa image better. I could get good results out of the F65, but I prefer the look of the Alexa, despite the fact that the Alexa doesn't have the same kind of resolution. We're not living in a world where 'all things (cameras) are equal' with the exception of resolution.

Now, let's be clear. The Alexa does not have a 1/8 ProMist filter over its sensor. The Alexa does have an OLPF/IR filter (which supposedly cost(s) them $17,500 to manufacture), as do most cameras. The myth of the ProMist filter formed when no-one could figure out how Arri could get a much more natural, film-like image out of their camera versus say, RED. Of course no-one thought about the fact that Arri have been making cameras for 100 years, and brought out their first digital camera two years before RED which used the digital sensor from their film scanner. The D20 and D21 have beautiful images, but they were impractical. Arri were/are more concerned with the image the camera puts out, rather than the resolution on paper. Which is why it's become the de facto Hollywood standard. Most films are still projected at 2k, so whilst 4k acquisition can be useful in some situations, at this point in time it is far from necessary. Personally, I care more about the image from a camera than the on-paper specs. And I shoot ProRes on Alexa @ 2k more often than I shoot 6k on a RED Dragon. I like the image more. Yes. In an ideal world where all things could be equal, then extra resolution is not necessarily a bad thing (although as has already been discussed, 4k+ digital capture has led to new makeup techniques that are not as obvious, and has required better set construction etc. as you can see every little fine detail that you may not have seen even on film). However, we don't live in an ideal world, and all things are not equal. Unless you're talking about the very specific example of the Alexa 65 vs Alexa Plus. But even then, all things are not equal because the lenses will be different. It's important to look at the kind of work you expect to do or are doing, and then look at your budget and what you can afford, and then look at the images of the cameras you're looking at and decide on which one you like the best. Most people (especially on these boards) don't yet need to shoot in 4k, it's just an extra bonus that the GH4, NX1 and others allow you to do. Careful you don't get too bogged down in physical resolution because there are many more things that have greater effects on the actual image of a particular camera. I recently shot a commercial that was to debut in cinema for a film festival before moving to television. It was all to be shoot at 100fps, so we hired a RED Dragon and did the shoot and went through the whole post process and mastered at 4k, assuming we would then downscale to 2k for exhibition if they were not screening in their 4k cinemas. The cinema then told us that they would be exhibiting all their commercials in 1080 HD and to please provide a 1080 screening version for them.. Of course, the commercial looked better downscaled than others I've seen in other cinemas that have obviously been mastered in HD and then upscaled to 2k. However, I thought it was funny that even times when you're sure you're going to need 4k for exhibition, it's not always the case!

I mostly use S35 to shoot, so I guess you could say it's my 'favourite.' If I had to put together my ideal lens set, it would consist of a 20mm, 24mm, 32mm, 40mm, 75mm, 100mm, 135mm Maybe a 50mm and/or a 60mm, but as a general all-purpose lens set, I'd be quite happy with the above. I much prefer a 40mm to a 50mm, and prefer a 75mm and a 100mm to a straight 85mm. Aspect ratio wise, I most often shoot 1.85:1 so again I guess you could say it's my 'favourite' To be totally honest though, it really depends on what I'm shooting. Some stories call for 2.39:1 anamorphic, others are 2.39:1 cropped, others at 1.85:1... Same with lenses and sensor. I tend to choose what's best for the story, rather than what's my 'favourite'

Yeah... I did the same thing. At my local electronics store, there's a 55" Sony HD TV right next to a 55" Sony 4k TV. The image difference is absolutely incredible. Up close. Take a few steps back to what would be normal viewing distance and suddenly the difference is not all that much. Viewing distance and screen size will always play a factor in whether or not it's worth delivering in 4K. The difference on a 55" TV at normal viewing distance is not that huge. But on a 100"+ TV will be very different between HD and 4k. If you go to a 4K cinema screening and sit up the back, you will be viewing roughly the same detail as if you sit up the front of a normal 2k cinema screening. Something that looks like it's in focus on a 5" screen may be totally out of focus when shown on a 30' cinema screen. When you think that at normal viewing distance on a 55" screen there's not a huge amount of difference, and that there's no mass distribution channel for 4K content, and that television networks have only very recently finished switchovers to HD - and many are still only able to broadcast 1080i because 1080p is too much data, you start to wonder if it's worth buying a 4k television for home viewing within the next few years. However That's not to say that 4K for capture is not worth it. As many above have stated, there are advantages to capturing in 4K, especially if delivering in 1080 HD.

The Blackmagic production cam and the URSA have the same sensor and will have pretty identical pictures, so there's no real reason to buy an URSA. The CION also uses the same sensor, but had different internals so will look a bit different. I imagine The FS7 will be able to get similar images without needing the raw workflow and with better ergo, but is also on the more expensive end.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with all that you're saying. And my post was not to single out yourself in particular, it was meant as a general statement. I've seen your recommendation for the Nikon 28-70 zoom on here in the past - and it is in fact a lens I've used on commercials! (So - good reccomendation ;)) I just see so many newbies these days rushing out to buy the latest and greatest camera body, and spend hours looking online to find the right profile, or the right settings that's going to make their picture look the most cinematic. I think it's just really important to look at what Cinematography really is, and what actually makes you a Cinematographer - and it's really not got much to do with what camera you use, and definitely has very little to do with what the in-camera sharpness or saturation setting is at. I've shot outdoors on sunny days at T11. The Australian sun is unforgiving. We had an incomplete ND set, so I had an ND1.5 in and still had to stop down to T11. It wasn't (just ;)) the fact that we were shooting on Alexa that made those couple of shots still look good, and indeed cinematic - it was more where I put the camera and how I shaped the light in that spot. My eye and my lighting is what gets me work, and is what people like about my work - It's not the cameras I shoot on, or the stop I shoot at. Perhaps evidenced by the fact that nearly every project I shoot is shot on a different camera. All cameras are tools. And all lenses have a different look, different stops have different looks and depth of field characteristics. I think most people would agree and say 'duh obviously.' But if you want to be a DP, your choices should all be driven by the story, not what looks the 'coolest' or the most 'cinematic.' I've shot things that don't look cool, don't look cinematic, and don't mimic what professionals are doing on their major features. But it's what the story called for and it worked with the story. The Director and I both loved the look. As I'm sure you're well aware, something looking cinematic has very little to do with shooting at f/16 outside. Now, I don't make a habit of shooting at that extreme a stop, but I do shoot there, and if the story called for a look that suggested shooting stopped down that much, I would go for it. All I'm trying to say is that a shooter will never understand the 'how' until they understand the 'why'. And blindly rushing out to buy or use gear simply because 'that's what x does and their stuff looks really good' is missing the point completely. I know that's not what you're going for, but it can be interpreted as such - and you will never succeed as a DP if all you do is copy those better than you. You're right - you can't buy experience you have to earn it. But how does a newbie even know they need more experience if they're told that all they need is x camera, y lens, and z settings and their image will be just as good as anything you see in a movie (again I know this isn't what you're saying, but as a more general comment). You could give a newbie an Alexa with Master Primes and a full set of NDs or a RED Dragon with Leicas and they still wouldn't shoot stuff that looks as good anything shot by Roger Deakins or Jeff Cronenweth. As evidenced by the fact that one of the most awful-looking films I've ever seen was shot by someone I know who was never really a DP, but thought they could be. Shot it on RED Epic in 5K, and it's the most awful thing I've ever seen - even worse than many home videos I've seen shot on DSLR. I think if you want to be a professional shooter, you should build up some experience on kit lenses, or whatever you have. Just get out and shoot and find what you like. Your style might not be shooting on Angie zooms and Cooke Primes wide open. That's cool. Your style might be. Maybe I'm being too pretentious with this whole give a man a fish/teach a man to fish thing... I would love to share my knowledge about how I work and my lighting choices etc. This seems to be mostly a gear forum, so perhaps I'm posting in the wrong place.