TomTheDP

Things used to be a lot more conventional. Films tended to carry the look of the film stock they were shot on. Nowadays it is easy to go crazy with exposure as you have a 100% accurate monitor to reference. On top of that everything is digitally color graded to the point where it can be hard to tell what camera they were shot on. Though I can still often tell as the sensor/color of the camera often seems to shine through the manipulation. That isn't always the case of course. But regardless it's all just personal preference. Take Roger Deakins for instance. He prefers to do everything in camera, where as others will do a large amount in post. But in terms of the Alexa having a clean image I agree to some extent. At least compared to film it is cleaner, higher dynamic range(maybe), and probably sharper. That is just taking into consideration the Alexa Classic sensor. These are all conclusions Deakins had after shooting with the Classic on his first digital film "In Time". His word isn't God but he certainly had his fair share of experience shooting 35mm film content. I have never shot on 35mm film only for photography. That is a 12 year old camera, now we have higher resolutions from ARRI, 3.2k, 4.5k, or 6k rather than 2.8k, RAW recording, even higher dynamic range. But what I will say is at base iso of 800 the Alexa Classic isn't particularly clean. I tend to shoot 200-400 when I want really clean footage. That said it has a nice clean texture, meaning the noise is pretty consistent, lacking in color noise unless you really under expose badly. I rate the Alexa at 1600 iso, which again isn't clean but it's pleasant. That gives you 7 stops of highlight latitude but not much in underexposure. Most other cameras fair worse. Deakins commented on cameras looking too digital. He doesn't care much for emulating film but did admit the Alexa has a natural texture and if that were to go away you might be left with something too clinical and lifeless. I guess the Alexa 35 has in camera textures which I guess solves that issue. Deakins was one of the first to embrace digital and pretty much immediately conclude that it is superior to film, at least for him. I still look at 35mm film as the golden standard. I was brought up on it and there is something magical about it for me. In someways I was brought up on Alexa ALEV3 as well. Most of my favorite modern films were shot with that sensor tech. There are some cinematographers noticing that the Alexa 35 Alev4 sensor/pipeline feels more digital. The motion rendering, the color science. ARRI has always been known for giving true to life looking colors with nice skintones. But compared to the newer sensor the starting point on the ALEV3 cameras does have a look to it. I assume it is similar to what Blackmagic did between the older and newer cameras like you mentioned. Going from a kodak 2383 to a standard rec709 look. I suppose the option to actually shoot on film for people like me will always be there, assuming the budget allows. I've heard some very experienced cinematographers comment on how they can't seem to get the same look from digital as they do film. That may be them showing their age. Tools like Dehancer have made it a lot easier to emulate that look. I will admit I have seen a few videos that were incredibly well done in terms of film emulation. Although I would say they are the minority. I just prefer to get it in camera especially considering I am often not involved in post. Again that is just me and I am in the minority.

Basically what @kye If the industry becomes mostly VR it will be a different ballgame. God forbid.

I'd imagine you could shave off a decent amount of weight. Camera's are already so small though so we are talking pretty small amounts in general.

Pretty uninspired stuff but that isn't the camera's fault. Definitely a good value. Hard to beat the capabilities of the FX FF 4K sensor.

Amazing congrats!

I just sold mine, now I am almost regretting it. 😅 I really wish companies would continue pursuing the film look. I think even ARRI has moved to high res/clean digital look with the Alexa 35. I get it, capture the cleanest image possible and make all the choices in post. It just isn't my style at all.

Same, the Classic sensor in a komodo sized package would be a blessing. They were able to drastically reduce the size while increasing the size of the sensor and frame rates with the mini in 2015. I would think 8 years later they could probably further reduce the size and power draw especially using the Classic sensor. Definitely not going to happen as ARRI only serves the biggest industry clients who it wouldn't appeal to.

I am kind of over the GH5 but it's certainly a capable camera. You can definitely get a worse image from a technically better camera, so much has to do with all the other factors that go into a production. Some will say, myself included, that I just like geeking over camera tech and that it is a hobby. But how much is the interest being influenced by these companies. Are they dictating our interests through marketing? Are people capable of independent thought or are we all just following the arrows laid by these large corporations. It definitely sometimes feels like the latter. Content and the world seems to be less and less creative and more and more just a bunch of cheap and lifeless products paired with boring and lifeless people. I am getting too pessimistic at this point. There is certainly still a ton of creativity in the world. It is just easier to talk about product releases I suppose as it is easy and doesn't really challenge the mind.

It is for acquiring plates though. DSLR's have been used for a while for crash cams or things like this. I remember the 5d was listed on the Avengers. Not really going to be ever seen as an A, B or even C cam on a major production. This isn't to discount the GH5 or any other camera just being realistic. There are some good voices on youtube. Most channels are selling cameras though so of course they are not going to promote old stuff. Consumerism is definitely in full swing though and the filmmaker market is insane in this regard. There is a recent trend to do reviews of old cameras which is refreshing (maybe saying it is a trend is exaggerating it).

I have already given up RAW, battery life, size and resolution for dynamic range, color science, and fast readout (the Alexa Classic). Dynamic range and color science are top priority for me and then sensor readout speed. After that battery life, then weight and then resolution.

Yeah I have always loved the idea of AF but in practice have never liked it even with Sony and Canon. Maybe I just don't do enough event work or weddings though.

I prefer going with older used pro equipment over cheap prosumer Chinese stuff. Miller fluid heads often come up for good deals.

I could do prores, the cards I have tested won't work in any format though.

Does anyone have any modern solutions for SD cards on the micro for RAW shooting. Was going to sell mine but might keep it if I can find some media for it.

Some REC709 profiles have a surprising amount of latitude though you are 100% right log is giving you a lot more wiggle room. Clog3 from Canon is kind of like a light log for quicker grading I would say.

The Panasonic has been found to work really well with adapted Canon EF lenses, which aren't super expensive compared to RF. But yeah I would say Sony and Fuji definitely have the 3rd party options locked down. Fuji also has really nice native lens options which are often pretty well priced. Lenses is also a big factor no doubt.

I have never had to make that choice as the difference in price is minimal. If you are getting an Alexa Mini or Sony Venice that is a different story. But yes between choosing one of the 12 bit readout cameras on the market and an older RED or Alexa I would definitely go with RED or Alexa. I always have access to basic lighting packages. Now if it were a situation where I thought we would have to film at 6400 iso or something I would have to go with something like a S1H but aside from that personally I wouldn't. Looking at Gerald Undone's review and his dynamic range tests of that sensor, it looks significantly better than the previous Fuji sensor which I owned at one point. Almost purchased the XH2S as soon as I saw that review and his findings. A lot of the dynamic range of that sensor is in the shadows and it does get noisy. But if the color rendition is maintained and the noise monochromatic I like that look. One of the traits of an Alexa is that underexposure results in noise. However it doesn't have color noise and maintains color rendition nicely. Of course the XH2S doesn't have the Alexa's highlight retention. @jpfilmz There is also something about older canon color science that is really nice. @hyalinejim very nice work!

I don't feel you really have to grade log. You can just put on a lut and adjust the exposure if you need/want. But in terms of your question I would say it depends what other features you are looking for. The Canon R8, FX30, or Panasonic S5 MK2 seem like good relatively budget options. If you can, renting or borrowing is the best way to really see if you like a camera as IQ is only one aspect.

The look difference these cameras have extends past just white balance and tint differences. Shooting in REC709 isn't bad per say. Really depends on the camera's processing. I prefer organic looking noise, REC709 profiles often use aggressive NR which gets rid of all organic looking texture. Some are worse than others. Another issue is things like color clipping and highlight roll off which are sometimes handled poorly in REC709 profiles. This is why I usually prefer to shoot log. But for fast turn around or low paying stuff where the client doesn't care a baked in look is sometimes the way to go for sure. Also if you just shoot a lot of home video or self documentary stuff, it can be nice to save the space and shoot 8 bit. I also agree with @PannySVHS It can really depend on the camera/codec/processing. All 8 bit isn't equal, same with 10 bit.

Yes but that is the only way to make money when you don't have an obscene amount of money to market to general audiences.

Yeah a distributor usually takes like 30% from what I remember, at least the ones in Detroit. A lot of streaming services are buying "original content" where you just sell directly to say Tubi without a distributor fee. I guess it is like anything there is a lot of variables. @Evgeniy85 It depends on the film you make. The ones I work on get a lot of views and consequentially make a lot of money. For example with Tubi and Detroit it is all "black films". You have to know that market. I am sure there are other indie streaming markets you can hit but that is the one I work in.

I am not sure the average but the money can be very good if you have the right content. It is a matter of knowing what to make and how to make it. Most people either know one or the other.

It is a shame they can't do slight compression like 2:1 or 3:1 like the old BMPCC

He basically shows up, shoots for like 1-2 hours, edits them in a day. Marketing kind of does itself after a while. But yeah it is definitely a hustle.

Yeah definitely on the more standard industry side music videos are usually tough budget wise. I know a guy who does music videos for like $500 a pop, that includes shooting and edit. Super basic stuff but he makes a living off that. All this cheap gear both in terms of camera, editing software, computers is basically creating a world where anyone can make a film for relatively cheap. With all the streaming platforms now you have access to sell your stuff in a way that wasn't possible before. I don't know if it is good or bad, probably a bit of both. It is for sure interesting.