TomTheDP

I totally get shooting with a modern lighter setup compared to a full cinema rig. However FX6 vs FX3 is pretty silly. The slightly heavier FX6 is not significant enough to matter. Yet you get things like SDI which are pretty damn important. I bet the AC's hated the FX3's lol. What they really saved on is lighting when shooting at 12,800 iso. You can get away with much smaller lighting setups and utilize practicals a lot more. I'd not question their decisions to much as they successful made it happen. I did see pictures of 6 cameras A,B,C,D,E,F. I suppose 6 FX6's would be a good deal more to carry around vs the FX3. However I would still think you'd use the FX6 as the A and B cam, and the rest use the smaller setup. For daytime stuff you'd save a lot of weight and time using the internal ND's over a matte box. It looks like most of the movie was shot at night though.

Things will change. The FX3 is still a far cry from an Alexa 35, but it isn't that far. A few cameras down the line and the different will be even less noticeable. Really their budget savings were in lighting. You can use really small lighting equipment when shooting at 12,800 iso. It feels gimmicky to me though. The movie was funded by Sony. Why didn't they use an FX6? Same sensor but you have SDI outputs and a more rig friendly body. Maybe because advertising the movie was shot with the more expensive FX6 won't sell as many camera bodies?? I am sure the FX3 was a nightmare for AC's to deal with.

Perfect camera for vintage glass. You get the full 35mm field of view plus L mount. I am guessing it has the same dynamic range and capabilities as the S1H, which is fantastic, nearing RED Raptor quality. Only downside is the sucky rolling shutter.

It will probably be more like 13 stops max, but will be interesting to see if I am wrong. It doesn't appear to be the GH6 sensor because it is 6k. Very interesting.

Music videos have the most creative liberty. You can do a lot of funky stuff and it just doesn't matter a lot.

It is that way for all forum communities. Facebook for instance has groups that are pretty popular and everyone goes there. Everything is definitely more watered down now. Facebook groups don't have the type of info this forum does. Less people buying cameras now doesn't help either. Not everyone needs DSLR when a phone does such a good job. I also discourage people from buying a ton of gear. From my experience it is just waste of money unless you are a making money on it. Even the people making money are usually spending too way to much on equipment that barely benefits them. It's one thing if gear is your hobby. However I have seen a lot of people that were artists and then become gear heads and lost sight of actually creating.

This looks great man. Honestly if you exposed the subject any brighter I think it would look unnatural.

thank you sir! this looks great!

I also think the sensor matters a lot more than the codec. The Alexa looks great in Prores 422, but its still reading out at 14 bits and getting most of the dynamic range. One of the reasons I prefer prores to RAW is because you can downsample. This saves you data without losing much resolution. Downsampled 2k on the Alexa looks about as good as the full 3.2k resolution, but you use way less space. I have downsampled 6k to 2k on the S1H. The 2k side by side with 6k is almost indistinguishable unless you are really cropping in a lot. Shooting in 6k resolution is super data heavy. The last film I worked on we shot on the URSA 12K in 12k. Crazy data rates. I wish the Ursa 12k had an option to downsample from 12k to 4k prores. The in camera 4k RAW on the URSA 12K is noticeably less detailed than the 12k. Down sampled 12k Prores would look insanely sharp. Of course you can always shoot in whatever codec and transcode in post, but its just nice to get it in camera, throw it on your computer and it's ready to go.

Honestly rent both and see what you think. There is a lot more to using a camera than simply looking at a dynamic range chart. I like the out of the box Canon looks more than Sony regardless of dynamic range. Plus there is ergonomics and all that to consider.

The ones that don’t have clog2 kind of suck dynamic range wise. All Sony cams (mostly) have slog3 which can contain all the dynamic range the sensor can put out.

Thanks! This was a Kodak 500T lut a DP friend of mine made using Dehancer.

I think maybe they work better for weddings where you are sniping shots. I have to do focus pulls on dollys and such for take after take so more precision is required maybe.

Sounds like a good setup. No auto IBIS focal length detection is a bummer but its not terrible like you said. I am getting out of using still lenses for video though, focus throw is just usually subpar. I did use the Helios 58mm for one scene on my last feature. Looked amazing but was annoying to work with.

Yes at least this is how I shoot 35mm film stills. But what I was saying is once those decisions are made its kind of final. With digital its hard to mess up.

Some stills from a feature film I just wrapped on yesterday. This is just with a lut applied no further adjustments or corrections.

I am talking latitude. If you want to change your exposure you have to push or pull the film in the developing stage. Or maybe I am missing something?

I might consider it just as an AF gimbal camera if it is cheap enough.

I honestly think it is more about lighting than film vs digital. Tarantino said that Roger Deakins likes digital because he is lazy, he doesn't want to light for film. S35mm Film requires a lot more light to get a clean image. Roger Deakins shot 1917 at 1600 iso and it was clean. 1600 iso film (there aren't even any 1600 iso motion picture stocks as far as I know) is super dirty. You can light way more naturalistically with film and get away with it. Lighting for 800 iso vs 100 iso looks completely different, especially at night. Lighting style has also changed. Partly due to how easy it is to monitor digitally. You can see exactly what you are getting. Old school method was using a light meter, exposing skin at proper values all the time. Look at a movie like Jaws, they were blasting 20,000 wat light fixtures through fresnels right at actors faces to balance the light from full sun on a beach. Harder and more light used to be the norm. These days you'd just diffuse it or shoot naturally more likely. You can also fix digital easy in post. With film once you develop it you lose most of the dynamic range. You can't just go in resolve and turn down the highlights like you can with an Alexa or RED. Yes film texture and color is amazing but lighting was a huge part of it. I honestly hate the way modern films are lit and shot sometimes. The shallow DOF, shooting the shadow side, dark asf cinematography gets a little old. Another thing is LED's have a slightly different look. Anything prior to 2010 was HMI's and Hot lights.

Pocket 6k pro with canon 24-70 for ois Honestly below 3k there aren’t a ton of options. An S5/S1/S1H isn’t bad either. Zoom lens with vari ND. Decent battery life. GH6 with DZO 20-70

I’d argue modern hybrid cameras are noisy too unless using heavy internal noise reduction. Shadows are always noisy at base iso. You gotta over expose to negate that. for example on my pana S1, for a noise free image, I would overexpose by 2 stops. Pretty much the same thing on my Alexa, I’ll shoot at 200 iso if I want it completely clean.

Open gate and oversampled 4k will look virtually identical aside from the slightly larger field of view.

It is rarely within the scope of the budget. All the projects I have seen that were shot on film shouldn't have been as they ended up cutting the budget for every other department severely.

I feel it is useful for a ton of people. I would assume run and gun/vlog/youtube style shooting is what the majority of camera users are doing these days. I feel Industry industry shoots are not the majority of what cameras are being used for. A super formal shoot is probably using a cinema camera although hybrids are sometimes used.

Definitely the case for me mostly. If you do a lot of run and gun shooting on longer lenses though it can be a life saver. I wish Sony's electronic ND was in every camera. I value that way more than RED's compressed RAW.