HockeyFan12

Yeah definitely the Canons only win on personal preference for the look and ergonomics, I won't argue for them based on specs and the lack of timecode is super frustrating. That's one area where I 100% believe they're crippled by design. @Django You seem to be the only one here regularly shooting C100/C300 and C200, or with experience with both. I have a lot of experience with C100, C500, C300, not C200.... For something sort of old school, like a Back to the Future look or 80s-90s film look, which camera do you think is better? I'm going Canon on the basis of ergonomics fwiw, I know the GH5S etc. are good options but they're not in the running for me for this project at all for ergonomic reasons, etc. The C200 looks really noisy to me. The C300 is too but the grain structure is very fine, no banding like with the newer genreration. Has this been a problem or is online footage merely underexposed? I would think the C300 is TERRIBLE based on most online footage, but when metered correctly it's pretty great. Just narrow DR. So I don't trust online footage too much... the Cinema5D C200 review footage is hideous, for instance. Do you find the skin tones worse or better on one or the other? The "look" has changed entirely. Thanks.

Don't you have a C200 and a C300 now? How do you find they compare? As you know I think the original C300 has a nicer color profile (subjective preference) and is easier to get to a good looking place quickly, but I know its technical limitations. Has a "film look" to it to the extent that skin tones are darker and more saturated and greens are sort of teal/blue reds are sort of warm/orange. But owner/ops would often expose it terribly wrong, bringing out its weaknesses relating to limited dynamic range. Would you estimate a stop more highlight detail when both are at base ISO (800/850) on the C200? Do you find the texture of the noise okay on the C200? For some projects in the future, I want to go with one or the other.

I don't like external recorders much from an ease of use perspective, but you don't have to convince me when it comes to the image being very nice and there are circumstances where the external recorder helps. It's weird since it varies between shots it seems if it helps a lot or a little. A stop more highlight detail would be nice, but it's still leagues ahead of any dSLR I've used, and not too far behind an A7S. At $1999, I think the original is a steal.

I’m in the minority, I love the CX00 series, so I’m a biased. But while I can agree with most of the complaints against them, including poor highlight dynamic range (relative to A7S/A7RII, FS7, etc. where there's about one stop missing in the highlights–not relative to mirrorless or dSLR, where they're still excellent) and thin codec, sharpness isn’t one. What settings did you have when you were using the C100 Mk II that led to a soft image when you used it? Perhaps it was the lens or underexposure or something else? Imo, that series still has the sharpest out of the box 1080p image I’ve ever seen, sharper than Alexa 2k or downscaled Red MX (and I've intercut the three in the same scene before). I think because it’s exactly 2x oversampled without being downsampled it’s razor sharp since there's no loss of sharpness in the downsampling algorithm, but I also think it has a thin AA filter on top of that because the C500 is sharper at 4k than you’d expect, and aliases where the Red MX doesn't. (Not necessarily good.) The cinema lock mode on the C300 has most sharpening disabled and is still razor sharp, sharper at 1080p than 2k Alexa , which has always been sharp enough for me, and is plenty sharp enough for theaters. But the rest is outdated, particularly the codec, and I agree it isn't the best deal for the price based on image alone. I'm just surprised you found sharpness to be the big problem with this camera. But otherwise I agree it's long in the tooth. To the OP, I would rent and try it out. We all have different needs. Personally I would also look elsewhere on the basis of technical image quality alone, which is the concern of most on this forum (either spend less or spend more for best price/performance) because the AVCHD codec is a bit thin for pushing things hard in the grade, and it has a three-frame GOP (group of pictures, not the party) where you can get ghosting artifacts in the shadows or desaturation for dark scenes or very high contrast scenes that fill the full 12 stops. But the ergonomics are great for an owner/op (bad for traditional production where you have two ACs)... so it might be a good doc camera and the basic look is great imo, the basic look of Canon Log is pretty baked in and requires less grading but has great skin tones and proper chroma rolloff (most dSLRS don't, though GH5 does), which makes up for the thin codec a bit, assuming you like the look. Not trying to start a flame war or big argument, just offer my opinion. Sharpness is the one area (despite the 1080p resolution) where I found the original C-series cameras to be rock solid, so just offering a difference of opinion. DPs I work with recommend using light diffusion filters on them when interacting with Alexa, in fact. I've been working lately on content graded by Technicolor, the Mill, and Company 3 and sharing stories with others who sit in there and haven't heard anything from them in the way of using post sharpening with any camera–and that includes a piece shot on the AF100–so I'm confused about why it's brought up so often on this forum. But again I'm not a colorist, just offering a differing opinion, that's just that–an opinion. No one's is more right or might wrong. If you're producing content for 4k tv displays specifically, that's different from Technicolor producing 2k for a theatrical DCP, and so in that case Technicolor's opinion might be wrong. Just offering my perspective. To the OP, I recommend trying the camera out. I love the C-series the best of anything and recently considering a C100 Mk II but decided otherwise. The price/performance on the C100 Mk II is not good from a technical perspective in today's market so I'd go downmarket (original C100 is nice, GH5 is nice) or upmarket (FS7) unless it very specifically fits your needs. That said, sharpness isn't the concern I would have with that camera, I always tended toward using diffusion filters or vintage lenses with it to intercut with the Alexa at 2k, in fact.

It was a long drive. Also could have been a scam. But I didn't realize they were still that expensive. Not sure how 4k can downscale to 2k, it might but I don't understand how. Uncompressed 2k perhaps.

There was one for about $2500 near me that was on craigslist for about a month. I prefer the look of the C500 over the C200 (as I said above, I like the original color rendering Canon had more than their Alexa-like look) even if it's technically inferior... but the requirement for a Q7+ recorder to shoot RAW kills it for me. That brings the price up until it's much closer and the recorder itself is large and battery-heavy. With RAW I'm getting a headache in post; I don't want one on set, too. The lack of DPAF I think is also difficult for guerrilla shooters. For a production company that has a slightly bigger crew, the C500 option might be amazing. I really love the images from that camera (except for the poor highlight dynamic range, which the C200/C300 Mk II addresses) but it feels less guerilla-friendly. ProRes RAW doesn't carry over HDMI... yet. But I think the 10 bit signal does. Not sure how much it matters because the HDMI output doesn't look like it's Canon Log 2, and the other color profiles all look fine in 8 bit anyway and are designed to work fine there. (Not like SLOG2/SLOG3, where you can tell they're not really working.) I actually think the RAW clips in that comparison look bad, digital and over-sharpened. But I think I'm confusing a dislike for over sharpening with a criticism about color, which you can manipulate how you like anyway. I far prefer the C100's blues and slightly prefer its skin tones, but that's an easy fix if you shoot RAW. The sharpening I think is what bothers me. The other C200 clips on that channel look ugly and over-sharpened and like bad video; elsewhere there's some beautiful footage shot with it. Seems like the best thing going at the price point... just wish the price point would drop lol.

I've been trying to shy away from controversial opinions, and this isn't going to help. Apologies in advance–everyone's opinion is there own. But what do people make of this test: (Forgive me if it's already been posted.) Am I the only one who prefers the C100's colors? (And thinks the +5 sharpening on the C200 looks terrible (like video)?) C200 still looks great. Fwiw, I also prefer the C500's skin rendering to the Alexa's (see Shane Hurlbut's tests to get an idea what I mean). And the C200 looks like it's trying to be an Alexa-style camera in terms of look (just like the FS7), so no surprise. The C300 had darker skin tones, it exposed that color less brightly and more warm yellow less magenta. Just wondering if I'm crazy. What do others think? I might have a bias. But the C100 color looks so much better to me at 3:30 and the sharpness is not night and day. Deciding between these two for a shoot... well, maybe or maybe not. Just thinking about it now. I'm normally a 4k naysayer (I like soft, for me JFK and War of the Worlds–very soft looking images are my favorite, but I know that's passé, but I did think Black Panther was sharp enough despite the 2k DCP) but now I'm thinking why don't I try something new.

+1

There's a much bigger audience online, but, as you're probably learning quickly, people aren't always as nice! So the first question is who your audience is. (Online? Festival? Broad? Niche?) The second question is what your goal is with that audience. (Are you doing spec work to get hired to direct at somewhere like Buzzfeed? Trying to build a following for your own unique brand online? Trying to find like-minded creatives to work with or for? Trying to get a technical/craft job or exclusively writer/director?) The bigger your audience, the more you'll have to stoop to the lowest common denominator. Look at YouTube stars like Pewdiepie and Jake Paul; that's the image of a successful online filmmaker. If your work doesn't resemble that, maybe don't go that route. If you want to direct spec ads, imitate ads and apply to production companies. If you want to direct at Buzzfeed, imitate Buzzfeed videos and apply at Buzzfeed. If you want to go to film school, submit according to the application process. But the more niche your voice/its potential audience, the harder it will be to find the audience and the harder it will be to monetize. But also, the more creative freedom you'll have, and hopefully the longer your brand will persist. (There are a few niche web series I love. They don't seem to make much money, but one of them has been around ten years now.) But even finding your audience is sort of irrelevant unless you're great at marketing. A family friend used to sell roles in his high school movies to finance them. I think he's now running one of the largest YouTube empires and is making seven figures. Ditto a friend of mine used to sell DVDs and now he runs a very successful corporate video production company. They changed audiences, but their strong sales skills remained. Ultimately it's the same marketing and promotional skills that worked in person that later worked online, and it's more the marketing than the filmmaking that gets you in the door, and then the filmmaking talent that sustains the success. I don't know if I have any talent with video, I hope I do! But I know I don't have much with marketing, or at least I'm uncomfortable with it due to low self-esteem. :/ And frankly not really liking a lot of online content these days or even a lot of theatrical films as much as I used to. So I won't even be attempting what they did, but my audience is different anyway. We all have different audiences, or maybe we have many audiences for our different projects. I might be doing spec work rather than making a YouTube channel, or I might be applying to festivals... or even getting a PA or low-level job at a company that makes my favorite work just to meet the right people there. Or I had another idea that maybe someone might watch on YouTube. But a letter never goes anywhere if you don't know who to mail it to. If you just want to be internet famous, be a sociopath on YouTube. If you're inspired by a director you really love, reach out to him or her. If you feel you appreciate his or her work better than others, try to work for him or her. Be stubborn about it. Track your heroes down. Find their email. Ask every month to be a PA on a set of theirs. Travel to where they live for an interview. Then hand them that DVD (or script, or Vimeo link) in person. That's your audience of one. This actually works. Regardless of specific tactic (it all depends what you want personally), know your audience and what they want. Your audience might be one person. If you're doing a fan film it might be Marvel fans. If you're doing a camera vlog it might be camera fans. If it's something new... risky, but go for it. Plenty of different approaches depending on your audience. But know them. And know yourself. Even the festival scene, which is somewhere in the middle of those two options, is all about marketing. I have friends who've gotten into nearly all the top ten festivals and the trick is they're part of that social network and they really really push hard with their applications, even hiring people to promote their films. The other trick is that once you get into a top ten festival, other festivals will ask to program you. The whole festival scene is a bit of a farce, but the farce is simply the disconnect between how they market and what the truth is. Big festivals need content to match their brand, so they're fairly conservative. Even if your brand is "edgy" you have to stay on brand, so it's a conservative approach to edgy. Small festivals need films that played big festivals, so they're even more conservative! (But knowing programmers personally–the DVD route, so the speak, matters here. And I was surprised to learn that a short at a major festival attracts more attention from a talent agency than a Vimeo staff pick and by far.) The other really sneaky thing is that a lot of the most successful Vimeo videos are actually made with assistance from larger production companies or agencies or post houses, but are marketed as very guerrilla. This isn't always the case, some stories are true, but don't believe everything you read online. (Certainly don't believe me. If I knew what I were saying, I would be working now–not posting this!) But internet platforms aren't all they promise to be; that promise is just the marketing by YouTube and Vimeo to get you to produce content for them so that they can monetize it. The success stories of online filmmakers are their marketing. And they're very good at marketing. And you're their audience. So if you haven't had a lot of success online, maybe try a different route? The one thing NOT to believe is that if your work is creative and unique and great others will discover that and flock to you. I saw one of your videos and you have a good voice and should keep doing what you're doing, or exploring what you want to do next, whether it's more of the same or something new. Probably the most original voice I've seen on this forum, but this forum seems mostly to be about image quality and specs. I've seen more creative voices at Slamdance and SXSW and Sundance and Rooftop, for instance. (No offense, perhaps they're just more developed. and I have friends who pay the bills doing corporate and then make really wild and awesome festival films–so you can be interested in both markets for sure.) But the idea that people online will immediately recognize what you have to offer and leap to make more of it is a very myopic view. Look at Spielberg's first spec film, it's not a personal story. It's more an example of visual talent and competency. His creative voice developed after he got in the door directing TV. I think Eraserhead is the only example I can think of of a really outsider voice nailing its first landing. People see Jake Paul succeed and assume everyone should see their work and judge it better because of what an asshole Jake Paul is, but that's not how it works. Jake Paul is a genius at what he does. What he does is just act like a high school bully. The Kardashians are geniuses at what they do. But what they do is appeal to lowest common denominator, which is also the biggest audience there is. Don't judge them based on their audience; find a different one. I'm on time out here for posting incorrect technical information, which I again apologize for. And I feel like I'll probably get some pushback for a lot of the above being factually incorrect; I expect a lot of it is, and I wouldn't take my advice if I were you, since I'm just an anonymous guy online. So take it with a grain of salt. But I do think knowing your audience, knowing how to market your work to them, and knowing how to meet them halfway is crucial. The first thing film schools do is to "normalize" your voice. They look for creative voices then tone them down and improve production value so those voices are tolerable to the other students and faculty and then eventually to festivals. (Although a lot of film schools aren't worth the money, so if you aren't rich, consider that they're also marketing their wares to you and want you to think they're gonna do things for you that maybe they can't. Some are good. But be wary and make sure you apply to the right ones if you do, and you definitely don't have to.) All media are social media, so look at your relationship with your audience as a relationship with a person (or cohort...), whether you make it a real personal relationship (selling DVDs, pursuing your favorite director or production company) or a virtual one. I think maybe this forum isn't the right audience for you (or for me) if we're trying to get into festivals, for instance. If I knew more technical stuff, it might be better for me. Different values. For instance, I have a lot of friends who've gotten into top ten festivals recently with 1080p/2k films, but here I keep getting reminded I need 4k. Both can be true, just for different audiences. (To be fair, some of those were shot at higher resolutions and delivered at 2k DCP... I ate my words once and I'll keep chewing.) But the festival route is really hard and really slow. (Like filmmaking used to be!) And online feedback is really fast and comes with instant gratification. I don't know if the festival route is right for me, I don't know if anything is, if I even have the talent, or if I do, if there's an audience for it. But I think the replies you're receiving in this thread speak to a disconnect between what you're making and your audience's expectations. (Not to be rude.) So I'd give that some thought. Removed from your current outlets, what are your goals as a filmmaker? Who are your favorite filmmakers? If you could make anything and show it to one person what would it be and who would you show it to? That's the trick. You're marketing yourself to get into a festival/get YouTube famous/work for your favorite director or at your favorite company. But they're also marketing toward you so you watch their content and believe in their brands. And marketing isn't about the audience or the creator exclusively, it's where the two meet. Know yourself. Know your audience. Meet halfway. But also take everything online (including this) with a grain of salt. Online relationships are rarely worth as much as those in person.

I certainly don't need image quality that high. I just noted that Scorsese was content with iPhone and C300 (C500 internal) footage for the equivalent of "stock footage" (or B camera) on Wolf Wall Street, and most users here are looking for something much better than that. All I was saying is not to go by this forum necessarily as a guideline for stock footage sales, as I know from experience that Netflix and other big clients don't care about bit depth or even 4k resolution for stock footage. I apologize for getting the spec wrong. 15+ stops was a direct quote from an engineer at Deluxe, and I got similar information from an engineer at Dolby after that–but I think he was referring specifically to Dolby's spec. Was just trying to help, and will continue to do so but this time by keeping my mouth shut.

I was told 15+ by a lead engineer at Deluxe who was working with Canon and Dolby in developing future HDR workflows. It's my bad if I'm misquoting him, but I thought he was a reliable source. To be fair, some of the demo HDR material he screened for me was from cameras with only 14 stops of DR–and it was still great. I was given similar numbers by an engineer at Dolby and customer service rep at Arri (when they admitted that the mini's sensor rates above 15 stops but they don't publicly state it to avoid confusion since the original sensor rates a bit less–both seemed incredible to me). That said, I haven't read any white papers and I could be wrong. Are you referring to Dolby or HDR10+? What white paper are you referring to? I'm sure I'm wrong here regarding one of the two standards because of the competing standards and the fact that they haven't been finalized yet, but I'm curious because I still think I'm right about Dolby, or perhaps I misremembered or it's changed. As regards the black magic 4k camera, my own experience with it would indicate far less than 12 stops, more like 8-9 and then a lot of fixed pattern noise, so I agree with you there, but I was trying to be generous and not offend anyone who owns one. My apologies. The pocket camera, however, and the 2.5k, both seem to have very good DR, 13 stops perhaps, though I don't have an exact number. So that I don't make the same mistakes again, can you provide the correct information?

Decades lol. But I wouldn't be so pessimistic. My favorite filmmakers (Spielberg, Scorsese, etc.) are more from the golden age than from today, and I don't think others have gotten any better than them. In terms of viewership, I agree with you, but not because of image quality. I think Jake Paul and video game commentators are the future of film/video consumption, but not because they're shooting 4k... just because they're younger and the culture has moved on to a point where that's what it wants. I still think it's about content. They'll probably be shooting 4k soon enough, though... certainly before Spielberg. So you have a point. As I mentioned elsewhere, my interests are mostly in narrative (and maybe a niche vlog about politics and movies). I've accepted that what I'm interested in isn't mainstream popular. But I'm starting to think my views here might not be helpful to others for that reason, so perhaps I'll bow out for a while if I'm not being helpful to myself or others. But vinyl sales are doing great now, just not in competition with Apple Music, if you know what I mean. So I'm not that pessimistic, but maybe I'm a dinosaur after all.

Those Netflix originals (and the most recent Sundance feature I worked) were released last year. Things are moving fast, but large professional markets are the slowest to catch up. And frankly, most festival features don't have the budget to finish at 4k. I'm just offering my experience, maybe elsewhere things are different. For stock footage I totally agree you want 4k bare minimum, fwiw.

I could not disagree more strongly. Look at what gets into Sundance and only about 20% of it is shot in 4k+, probably less, and even that which is shot at higher resolution sees a 2K DPC finish 99% of the time. I can't think of one Sundance feature that was finished at 4k. I get that Sundance is on the low end of the industry since it's mostly indie, but even in broadcast, there isn't any demand for 4k yet. Chances are there won't be. The infrastructure to switch to 1080p was enormous and costly, and streaming services are supplanting broadcast anyway. There is demand for 4k on streaming services, and a LOT of it, but those clients (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) will tell you up front what they want and give you the budget to rent any camera you need. The Netflix shows I've worked on include originals purchased outright from 1080p masters and those that Neflix themselves produced used HD stock footage freely (with a 4k A camera, but again, rented, so who cares what you own). The black magic cinema camera barely has 12 stops of dynamic range, though, and HDR requires 15+. The Ursa 4.6k perhaps is another story, but any file from the 4k BCC would be rejected by QC for excessive noise (for HDR).

Not at all. I wrote technical image quality. (We might also aim for a better image aesthetically, but I suspect no one here is getting close to that!) It makes sense. On a bigger production you have massive lighting set ups to reduce your need for dynamic range in the camera. And generally your output is 2k DCP on a feature for a (low contrast) movie projector and then maybe a blu ray for tv, where that's all you need. 35mm film is less sharp than an Alexa which is less sharp than a GH4, let alone a GH5 or A6300. Just look at some film scans from blu rays, and that's with post sharpening. Red made this fuss about how film is "3.2k" but that was 20% MTF on 50D film shot perfectly and scanned and sharpened and I think they still fudged it. With 500T film you're not getting close, particularly with Fuji (which aesthetically is gorgeous). Whereas the Alexa might be 100% mtf to 2k, and overall that looks a lot sharper because the integral of the area under the mtf curve is greater than film's, where it slopes toward lower mtf values sooner even if extinction might be a little later. On a desktop monitor (particularly with HDR) you benefit more from a sharper, higher resolution image–often desktop displays are in excess of UHD–and with better dynamic range. I suspect there's a reason Netflix is 4k and network tv isn't (though some shows are starting to be finished in 4k due to the popularity of streaming services, which I suspect is why Arri released the LF). Desktop displays are sharper and closer to the eyes than tvs or projectors so you need a lot more resolution. This is why I was rightly made fun of for saying 1080p was enough for my YouTube vlog. It is for me because I can't justify spending more on a camera, but that isn't to say it is for everyone! The broadcast specs are for the A camera. I've worked on a lot of broadcast shows (in a very minor role) and there is a lot of go pro footage and stock footage in them and it's often 1080p or worse. If 4k were available the client would have paid a premium for it, but as long as it's properly exposed HD, you've got a better image than you need. Of course, if you're shooting rather generic footage, image quality will be a better differentiating factor since there's already a lot of cityscapes, etc. If you're shooting a shark attack, less so, because there's less supply there and more demand. There might be a whole new market emerging for 120p 4k 15+ stop HDR-ready stock, one that presumably would pay a huge premium, but that seems like a steep cost of entry. To caveat that, I see VFX elements at 6k+ being sold online sometimes, and the higher the resolution there, the more they cost. So for vfx elements where they might be heavily scaled and manipulated, you might want higher resolutions and frame rates. But the BBC specs are for the A camera, it's not a big deal for stock footage if you don't meet them.

For personal work, I don't care about 4k or 10bit. But for stock footage I think you do want to shoot 4k bare minimum. Beyond that, just do a cost/benefit analysis if something even higher end will improve your client base. I don't think you need to worry too much about bit depth, though... Because for stock footage I don't think the requirements are as exacting as you think. BBC specs are for the A camera. B cameras can be whatever. No studio is going to reject a lone clip of stock footage because it's 8 bit instead of 10 bit, that would be insane. The difference between the two is usually invisible anyway, except for HDR or with thin codecs or poorly exposed images. It's only if the image doesn't hold up subjectively that a client would turn it down. In fact, the bigger question is what database you're on. Some networks won't use Pond5 because their clearance system isn't rigorous enough. I worked on a Netflix show and the footage itself was all 4k raw but the stock footage was whatever worked, like anything HD would be fine. I remember on Wolf of Wall Street (which I didn't work on, I wish I could have!) they used iPhone 5 footage for a shot. I never noticed in the theater. Some of the drone footage was also 1080p 8 bit (C500 but without an internal recorder). I didn't notice. Others here with keener eyes surely did, but for bigger clients usually the technical image quality is less of a concern. Most of us here are aiming for significantly higher technical image quality than Wolf of Wall Street on our personal work, I get this this forum prides itself in delivering the utmost image quality without a lot of money, but it doesn't mean most clients care. That said, with stock footage there's a good change your client will be zooming in on, grading, compositing, or manipulating your footage pretty heavily, so any extra resolution is good and log files aren't a bad idea. But I would be very surprised if they even looked at the bit depth. Personal work is obviously another story.

At least you have a shot list I'd assume? How does the AD schedule the day without one? For me it's about efficiency. If I don't have much in the way of time or resources I need to make up for it to whatever extent possible by planning. Maybe the increase in efficiency is partially imagined and but I take comfort in having a plan. The most talented amateurs I know have regular helpers or crew members and do better work than I do by far. I'm not advocating for storyboarding, I just figured it was common on guerrilla shoots to get around the limitations. My videos are right between guerrilla and family/home movies, but with stories. I think the appeal is having friends and family in something that tries to feel like an old "movie." So I hire a sound guy or bring on an actor or two when I can. I even wanted to try getting something into a festival (or amateur online festival) some day. I've been too busy with work to finish any videos this year, though. Now I'm feeling foolish for posturing here when my needs are less than others' and perhaps I'm just insecure about that and trying to recommend things that are "good enough" for me as though they're good enough for everyone else. As I write this, I'm eyeing a C200 on craigslist. I think I'll take some time off posting until I finish this next video. Still working on the script and I am going to try a storyboarding approach (and will post here if it turns out well). But in the future maybe I'll try mixing in other approaches, too.

Locations permits (often) run in the thousands each and require production insurance in the first place, which is another thousand dollars. That makes shooting non-commercial work a lot less fun when it's more expensive for one day on location than to buy the camera you're shooting with! I don’t think having a script and boards is abnormal, I thought everyone here did! It's a filmmaking community, after all. I was drawn into the hobby by narrative and by an interest in acting originally, but that's subsided since don't like being on camera much it turns out. The script is my main interest now, even though it's often an excuse to try out new gear. I thought most people here were shooting narrative, but I suppose there are a lot of documentary shooters, too, and corporate video shooters. My understanding (based on SAG rates) has been that ultra low budget is under $625,000 and low budget is between $625,000 and $2.5 million, but there's lots of budget manipulation so it's usually in fact higher. Either way it's semantics. I'd fall into the no budget/guerrilla camp. Also I agree with the sentiment that an Alexa is A) not that expensive–you can rent a mini here for $250/day, less than the cheapest location fee, and B) not materially different from an F3 for most purposes. If it doesn't look amazing on an F3 it's not going to look amazing on an Alexa, you might just have a little more highlight detail and a better texture and less skew. (And better high frame rate options, but worse low light.) Anyhow, I can sere why some of my opinions have rubbed people the wrong way recently, I made some incorrect assumptions about the community and their needs. I get now that image quality is of more importance to other people than it is to me, so my advice isn't helpful, and might lead people down the wrong path. To that extent, I should just get back to writing and not arguing over camera specs. My apologies.

I didn't say it wasn't important, just not that important to me. But yeah, while I have seen the Alexa on YouTube material, not on my channel. Maybe some day.

Some PAs make that little where I live, too. I've seen $150/day jobs. That doesn't seem so bad just getting started for a PA, though on reality tv PAs get closer to $400/day. I think people take low pay jobs for experience and networking, not the money. That said, I don't get how anyone lives off $150/day without support from family. Living wage is about $100k-$150k/year here, not that I'm necessarily pulling that in myself.

That's a very good point. My interests are YouTube videos and no budget festival-oriented narrative video. Unfortunately I live in a part of the world where it's difficult to find free locations and crew members (by no means impossible, just harder than in other areas), so I'm very guerilla-oriented,. I also think the above documentary-oriented videos aren't really applicable to what I'm doing, which is scripted and boarded and requires moving at least some lights and art around to articulate certain beats, and bringing in that extra gear can require a permit when just having a camera around wouldn't. And going back to another thread, for documentary-oriented videos, the Amira for instance would be an appropriate camera for a single operator (except to the extent that its size attracts attention), but for narrative videos it wouldn't because it's too big to put on a small slider dolly, not great in low light, etc. And for YouTube it would be overkill anyway! I apologize for some of the presumptuous comments I made in the past. When I mentioned that image quality wasn't that important to me, I sort of assumed others were shooting the kind of stuff I was shooting. Likewise, my idea of "storytelling" is specifically narrative, with a narrow three act approach to narrative at that. So perhaps I either need to broaden my horizons but definitely need to stop arguing with others who've already broadened theirs and are focusing on things I haven't yet progressed to needing to focus on in my own work. I do wish those more storytelling-oriented communities still existed online! Dvxuser was awesome. But I live in an area that has some amateur communities that exist physically and are good resources. They're probably the best resource for free crew members that I can think of, too. So I apologize for some of my didactic or presumptuous comments. Probably should look into those communities that are more narrative-oriented and less concerned with image quality, but the internet is easier and I'm a tech nerd at heart because it's easier for me to understand 4:2:2 colorspace than the second act of a script! :/

Today I think it's more vlog-oriented, but back in the day I really liked dvxuser and Channel 101. Both had five-minute film festivals that some real talent emerged out of! Back then virtually everyone was shooting with the dvx100 and better image quality wasn't really affordable. So the discussion had to move to other things, I guess. It speaks to there being a void (or me not knowing the online community as well as I should) that I can't think of a good equivalent that's as popular today.

I'm doubt most people on this forum shoot in that style, but that definitely describes me. There are other forums for people who do that kind of stuff, though.

I think what Arri means (someone else can correct me if I'm mistaken) is that most of the UI and buttons on the Amira are placed on the left side of the camera, facing the operator. Whereas traditionally, and on the Alexa Studio, they'd be on the right side of the camera, where the AC could hit record and make adjustments. Traditionally camera operators aren't tasked with hitting record, but since different operators work differently I assume there are record buttons on both sides of both cameras–but the UI is switched on the Amira so the camera op can make adjustments to frame rate, etc. without an AC. I think. Arri might have also added focus peaking so the operator can pull focus without an AC; I'm pretty sure that's on the Amira viewfinder and I don't remember it being in the Alexa one. Not sure. Don't quote me on this, but I think that's the main difference. Not that it's ideal for a single operator, but that in some limited circumstances (such as NFL films), it's conceivable a single operator could use one because the UI is on the other side of the camera.

I'd consider that a crew. Even so, you can use an Amira (or F55) as a single operator if you have to. You can pull your own focus and swap your own batteries and carry around a ton of expensive media, it's just going to slow things down. (The Alexa has really bad battery life in my experience.) If weight is distributed evenly, you can use a 70lb camera handheld for a day, it's just going to wear your back down more than a lighter one, but if it's balanced well it's not even that bad. This is all just opinions and priorities, no one is saying you absolutely can't. NFL films used to shoot 16mm on high speed cameras, maybe SR2 HS, they need that 200fps the Amira provides and need a cinematic look. From what I understand, they're mostly looking for clips for their highlight reels, etc. not trying to cover the entire game, and are probably using the center crop of the sensor more often than not. For them, the camera makes sense.