Sony FX30 released... 26MP S35 / APS-C version of the FX3

[Django]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

It doesn't convince me at all..his view is very respectable - obviously - but the argument is weak..he is just trying to mimic things of his subconscious and try to find reason for that.

We all have started with photos, by the way. My first experience with anything similar was the Zenit camera my father brought from Russia early-mid 80's. Still got it, and the 44mm.

what's wrong with mimicking things of your subconscious or revisiting the favourite FF lenses of your early 35mm photo days? that's one of the main appeals of going FF imo, the familiarity with the format and shooting wide-open on fast primes, both of which he touches upon. 

 

[Kisaha]

6 minutes ago, Django said:

what's wrong with mimicking things of your subconscious or revisiting the favourite FF lenses of your early 35mm photo days? that's one of the main appeals of going FF imo, the familiarity with the format and shooting wide-open on fast primes, both of which he touches upon. 

 

There is nothing wrong, it is just something very personal and that does not apply as a general rule or reason. He did that, ok, good for him.  Nothing else and nothing more.

[Django]

18 minutes ago, Kisaha said:

There is nothing wrong, it is just something very personal and that does not apply as a general rule or reason. He did that, ok, good for him.  Nothing else and nothing more.

General rule? there are no rules, only format choices and he explained his motivations. Of course its personal, but I think other people can relate. I know I can.. YMMV.

He also mentions tight spaces and narrow locations like shooting hallways etc. Going full frame means you don't have to step down to a wider focal length when you simply can't physically back up the camera to compensate for the S35 crop. Stepping down from 35mm to 24mm adds quite a bit of distortion. an alternative is to use a speed booster, but here again we're talking reasons for going FF.

[TomTheDP]

2 hours ago, Django said:

General rule? there are no rules, only format choices and he explained his motivations. Of course its personal, but I think other people can relate. I know I can.. YMMV.

He also mentions tight spaces and narrow locations like shooting hallways etc. Going full frame means you don't have to step down to a wider focal length when you simply can't physically back up the camera to compensate for the S35 crop. Stepping down from 35mm to 24mm adds quite a bit of distortion. an alternative is to use a speed booster, but here again we're talking reasons for going FF.

I assume you could get a zero distortion fast 24mm lens that would look about the same. Not many lenses that can do faster than 1.4 without compromising the image though. 

In my price bracket I just prefer 35mm vintage still lenses over cheaper S35 cine lens options. 

[IronFilm]

On 10/14/2022 at 10:15 PM, kye said:

I guess the way I was looking at it was that there's the top end who can use whatever they want and will use the latest and greatest

It isn't even the top end tier, it is "anything with a proper budget". 

As the rental costs are such a small part of the overall budget, and the rental cost difference per day between the latest and greatest camera and the previous generation isn't that much at all. 

 

On 10/14/2022 at 10:15 PM, kye said:

The fact that the lowest second-hand price was still high sort of indicates that there's still that much demand, even in the lowest tiers.

 

I'd say $4K for a Classic means they're essentially being "given away". 

 

On 10/14/2022 at 10:15 PM, kye said:

To me, if I was in the market for a cinema camera and an Alexa Classic was in my budget and I wanted the name brand recognition and the colour science etc, the fact that there's a new FF Alexa wouldn't really affect me that much.  Yes, it would impact the top-end folks, but at some point in the 'tiers' the people will still value that an Alexa Classic is an ARRI, with all the pedigree and tack record the camera has, and none of that goes away just because there's a newer model.  I think this is a significant thing considering that I suspect the majority of ARRI owners (non-rental houses) probably don't care that much.  Unless you're somehow required to shoot 4K, which very few are, then an Alexa Classic is still a very desirable camera that meets probably all the requirements you'd have.

It is a knock on effect. 

The ARRI 35 will make the Mini a lot more affordable, the Mini being more affordable will push down prices of the SXT & AMIRA, them being more affordable will push down even lower the prices of an XT. The XT being so cheap will force the Alexa Plus to go even cheaper. The Alexa Plus being super cheap will force the OG Classic go to yet even lower. 

[IronFilm]

On 10/15/2022 at 12:40 AM, Andrew Reid said:

I don't understand why anyone would go for the FX30 over an X-H2. Am I missing something?

Super easy integration within the existing Sony ecosystem/workflow. 

If you're a FX6/FX9/FS7/etc shooter already, then getting an FX30 over an X-H2 is the easiest of easy no brainer decisions for those shooters to make. 

On 10/15/2022 at 1:22 AM, Django said:

I want a Fuji XH2S for the sensor, resolution, open-gate, ProRes, film simulations etc. 

But as a working pro, already invested in Sony ecosystem plus an FS7.. the FX30 makes better sense.

FX30 does have some nice features like Cine EI, LUT import & TC. Nice ergonomics, top handle with XLRs. Active cooling.

And yes, rock-solid AF. But I'd also adapt glass and use a speed booster.

It's just not very exciting, at all really. Completely utilitarian like most Sony cams. No real innovative features. A "new" old sensor. Sony aren't breaking barriers like Fuji, they are simply diluting their cine line. Making it more accessible. Most accessible ever, really. And that'll probably be enough for them to make bank. They also have bunch of A7III/A6xxx users that will upgrade to it, as FX3/A7S3 were above their budget. And FX3/A7S3/FX6/FS7 users that will add one as B-cam.

Those are the main purchasing scenarios imo.

Exactly. That's a HUGE number of shooters. 

I'm too busy with my sound work, and don't shoot enough these days, but if I was to add another supplementary camera to my kit, then I don't understand why I'd possibly choose anything else other than a FX30! 

On 10/15/2022 at 4:25 AM, Andrew Reid said:

FX30 is soundly thrashed by the X-H2 under $2k but I can see why Sony are the new Canon - Trap people in the ecosystem with their lenses and adapters.

It is not even just the lenses. But the whole workflow. Having only one common set of menus to operate, that are all fairly similar, makes life easier for your ACs / second shooters (and yourself too, when switching back and forth between cameras). Having easily matched together cameras in post, that's also incredibly important. 

Where exactly does the XH2 "thrash" the FX30? For some people, yes, the XH2 does that. But for others, if you don't care about the 8K, or Blackmagic Raw, then for them the FX30 isn't getting thrashed. 

On 10/15/2022 at 6:05 AM, Django said:

Even bigger profit margin on FX3. Same exact body, FF sensor, twice the price!

Keep in mind that sensor is the single biggest hardware cost in a camera, and as sensor size goes up, the price of the sensor goes up faster than linearly. 

 

[IronFilm]

On 10/15/2022 at 6:11 AM, TomTheDP said:

The classic in my opinion is not a bad choice for small budget features. I just used one on a short 7 day feature and didn't find it getting in the way. I don't think people realize that the OG classic sensor is basically the same as the Alexa mini. I do plan on getting the Amira at some point, it is defiantly the best run and gun ARRI camera besides the 35. Although I think the Amira would still be better for shoulder rig setups. 

 

Similar here. After the ARRI 35 / Mini / LF (which are all still very high priced), then the AMIRA would be the one I'd want. 

 

On 10/15/2022 at 6:11 AM, TomTheDP said:

Yeah Netflix doesn't shoot film as far as I know of, but for big Hollywood it's the LF or Film usually. The Venice gets some use but even on Top Gun 2 it was only used for cockpit shots, the rest was film. I honestly think we'll see way less RED usage now that Arri has both the LF and 35 as 4k options, for higher end stuff that is. 

Top Gun 2 didn't use film, it was shot almost entirely on VENICE. 

Where did you read that?

Take a look at this list:

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-oscar-nominated-films/

Only one movie on that list was shot on film! And only because the director pushed hard for it. 

On 10/15/2022 at 6:11 AM, TomTheDP said:

I am really just talking really high end Hollywood. 

It is possibly my experiences in NZ are radically different, as we are a vert remote country with no commercial film labs. 

So I'm sure LA does more film movies than we do, but I do suspect that being shot on film is still very much the niche minority. 

On 10/15/2022 at 6:11 AM, TomTheDP said:

I am still very interested to see where the Alexa 35 puts everything. It is a way better choice than both the mini LF or S35 mini, just in terms of handling. It's basically better in every way. For low budget you get higher ISO options that aren't as noisy, for bigger productions you have a camera that is suited way better for AC's, 32bit float internal recording. I suppose the price is still going to put it outside of a large amount of productions.

32bit float internal recording??? Where did you read that. I don't believe it does that. 

[TomTheDP]

11 hours ago, IronFilm said:

 

Similar here. After the ARRI 35 / Mini / LF (which are all still very high priced), then the AMIRA would be the one I'd want. 

 

Top Gun 2 didn't use film, it was shot almost entirely on VENICE. 

Where did you read that?

Take a look at this list:

https://www.premiumbeat.com/blog/cameras-behind-oscar-nominated-films/

Only one movie on that list was shot on film! And only because the director pushed hard for it. 

It is possibly my experiences in NZ are radically different, as we are a vert remote country with no commercial film labs. 

So I'm sure LA does more film movies than we do, but I do suspect that being shot on film is still very much the niche minority. 

32bit float internal recording??? Where did you read that. I don't believe it does that. 

Oh shit, I thought It had heard it had 32bit internal recording. Sadly it looks like I am wrong. 

After watching Top Gun 2 I remember looking at the spec list on IMDB and seeing 35mm film listed, but looking at it again I only see the Venice. I don't know what I have been smoking lol. It makes sense as it looked pretty digital aside from the film grain, which was added in post it seems. 

The last Jurassic World film was shot on film. Obviously Nolan and Tarantino always shoot on film. But yeah you're right it's pretty uncommon over all. Although I feel it's made somewhat of a comeback. The last Star Wars trilogy was shot on film. I guess for faster turn around stuff like most streaming films/shows it really isn't an option. 

 

[Django]

Last SW Trilogy was shot on a mix of 35mm/70mm film, Alexa XTs, Alexa 65s & even 5D mk3 for stop motion.

 

[IronFilm]

3 hours ago, Django said:

Last SW Trilogy was shot on a mix of 35mm/70mm film, Alexa XTs, Alexa 65s & even 5D mk3 for stop motion.

I wonder how the ratios for each of those cameras broke down. Wouldn't be surprised if the 35mm / 70mm film where each very minimal, just so they could lean into the marketing press of "shot on film". 

[Django]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

I wonder how the ratios for each of those cameras broke down. Wouldn't be surprised if the 35mm / 70mm film where each very minimal, just so they could lean into the marketing press of "shot on film". 

Yedlin shot Last Jedi and the majority was shot on film. Only 10-15% was shot digitally according to Rian Johnson.

[TomTheDP]

Plenty of Star Wars BTS to see what camera they were using. I doubt they need to do trickery when you have Star Wars money. I imagine they went digital for certain VFX shots though. 

[kye]

On 10/16/2022 at 2:52 AM, TomTheDP said:

I assume you could get a zero distortion fast 24mm lens that would look about the same. Not many lenses that can do faster than 1.4 without compromising the image though. 

In my price bracket I just prefer 35mm vintage still lenses over cheaper S35 cine lens options. 

I think this is one of the main things that is actually being discussed - that of lens availability.  

From what I understand, you can halve the size of the sensor and halve the size of the lens and get the same rendering of FOV and DoF, but with a difference in how much light is gathered.  Often "the Hollywood look" is referred to as being a wide close-up with shallow DoF, which is easier on FF.  However the main point is that it's only easier on FF because of the lenses that are out there in the world, rather than any particular challenge with making wide/fast lenses for smaller (or larger) sensors.  

In this way, while people are talking about FF sensors, they're actually not talking about the sensor or camera at all, they're talking about the availability of lenses that exist in the world already, which is mostly dictated by 1) the almost completely unrelated topic of the historic popularity of 35mm negative film, and 2) the state of globalisation and trade during the time that 35mm film cameras were manufactured in great numbers.

5 hours ago, IronFilm said:

I wonder how the ratios for each of those cameras broke down. Wouldn't be surprised if the 35mm / 70mm film where each very minimal, just so they could lean into the marketing press of "shot on film". 

One thing I remember hearing was that often people shot on large format film for large / complex VFX shots where (IIRC) 70mm / LF film had more resolution / less noise than any digital sensor and therefore was better to form the basis of those shots for the VFX teams to work on.  Assuming this is true (you have to question everything these days!) then it would be why film would get mentioned a lot on various blockbuster productions, when it's really being used as a specialist tool, like a Phantom might be for high FPS shots.  Of course, now with the resolution wars that might no longer be the case anymore - maybe people just shoot the whole thing (or a few shots) on the Alexa 65 or equivalent RED/VENICE.

Having said that, there is a bit of an underground for using film I think.  Considering the relative difficulty in getting a perfect film emulation (Yedlin had to write his own software - that's pretty serious!) and also the relatively low cost of film if you're doing a larger budget project.  Also, I wonder how many productions are shot on sub-S35mm film, like ~16mm and ~8mm formats.  They do cost money but it's not prohibitive.

Noam Kroll is into it and has given some good write-ups and cost breakdowns:

https://noamkroll.com/why-im-shooting-my-next-film-on-super-16mm-how-you-can-afford-to-shoot-on-film-too/
https://noamkroll.com/shooting-16mm-film-on-a-budget-with-my-new-arri-16srii/

If I read those numbers correctly, you could shoot a 90 minute feature on S16 film, with a 5:1 shooting ratio, from ~$10K in total film costs (buying the film and processing and scanning) which would give you a 2K Prores file for you to colour grade yourself.  If you're making a feature then $10K isn't nothing, but it's also not a prohibitive cost either, assuming you're closer to the 'professional film' end of the spectrum rather than the 'student film' end.  I remember shooting a short film with my sister during her film school years for AUD $2K in total, and I think that catering was our largest cost!  We pulled in a great many favours for that one, I think it had a cast of about 20 (mostly extras) and took place in a high-end bar which we borrowed overnight during the week.  Fun times.  Anyway...

IIRC he also mentioned some costs about shooting with 8mm film, but I don't think they were in those two articles above?  His blog is filled with great info if you're not familiar with it.  In one of the above he mentions that film is having a resurgence, and obviously those articles are a bit dated, but not entirely sure what evidence he presents for it.

[IronFilm]

Oh yes, I'm a big fan of Noam Kroll! Been reading him for many years. Although of course those blog articles / costings are rather American-centric. If you don't have a local lab then costs / difficulties go sharply up. 

[A_Urquhart]

Not really sure what the last few pages have been about? Are we trying to justify an APS-C sensor as being good enough for a Netflix or Theatrical release?

Maybe Arri should weigh in here on why they would have spent hundreds of thousands of euro on developing a new S35 camera that is not good enough for the big time. Maybe every rental house I know, that all have ordered and received their new S35 sensor Arri camera could also weigh in here? With so much $$ at stake, you'd think they all would have done some research to learn that nothing less than full frame is really acceptable today. 

If only Arri, the rental houses and top DP's watched YouTube reviewers .....a lot of money could have been saved by not buying or even developing a useless 'crop' sensor camera.  

 

 

 

😉

[Django]

20 hours ago, kye said:

One thing I remember hearing was that often people shot on large format film for large / complex VFX shots where (IIRC) 70mm / LF film had more resolution / less noise than any digital sensor and therefore was better to form the basis of those shots for the VFX teams to work on.  Assuming this is true (you have to question everything these days!) then it would be why film would get mentioned a lot on various blockbuster productions, when it's really being used as a specialist tool, like a Phantom might be for high FPS shots.  Of course, now with the resolution wars that might no longer be the case anymore - maybe people just shoot the whole thing (or a few shots) on the Alexa 65 or equivalent RED/VENICE.

I think what you're saying was historically true in the 70s/80s but doesn't hold anymore due to the extensive use of DIs and green screen:

Limited use of 65 mm film was revived in the late 1970s for some of the visual effects sequences in films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, mainly because the larger negative did a better job than 35 mm negative of minimizing visible film grain during optical compositing. 65 mm was the primary film format used at VFX pioneer Douglas Trumbull's facility EEG (Entertainment Effects Group), which later became Boss Film Studios, run by former Industrial Light & Magic alum Richard Edlund. Since the 1990s, a handful of films (such as Spider-Man 2) have used 65mm for this purpose, but the usage of digital intermediate for compositing has largely negated these issues. Digital intermediate offers other benefits such as lower cost and a greater range of available lenses and accessories to ensure a consistent look to the footage.

That being said, IMAX 65mm (70mm is the projection format btw) is relatively unparalleled as far as IQ with a true equivalency of about 18K in resolution. The frames are 69.6mm x 48.5mm which even beats Alexa 65's 54mmx25mm. The particular DoF & aspect ratio also gives a special look & immersive feel. So really there is no digital equivalent. 

 Today there are only a handful of directors in the world that shoot 65mm film. And only a handful of IMAX cameras even available for rental (at one point there were only 4). It is so expensive and complicated that still only short sequences are usually shot with them. Christopher Nolan is the only director in recent times that shoots exclusively in 65mm AFAIK. He's credited even by Tarantino to having brought back that particular format to use in blockbuster productions.

But for Nolan, Tarantino & Johnson.. they've always said that they shoot film because they love the look (no matter if its 35mm or 65mm). So I really don't think its a "specialist tool" thing for VFX units but really an aesthetic choice. For the last Star Wars films the visual template was the original trilogy so that kind of explains the use of film and hiring a known film shooting combo such as Johnson/Yedlin. The use of CGI/VFX was actually quite restraint on shots involving camera work compared to the previous Lucas prequel trilogy. A lot of animatronics were used, virtual production and basically just real props, real explosions etc. Nolan & Tarantino also advocate such real old-school FX. I mean its kind of silly to go through all the hassle of shooting in film only to integrate massive digital CGI/FX. 

 

20 hours ago, kye said:

Having said that, there is a bit of an underground for using film I think.  Considering the relative difficulty in getting a perfect film emulation (Yedlin had to write his own software - that's pretty serious!) and also the relatively low cost of film if you're doing a larger budget project.  Also, I wonder how many productions are shot on sub-S35mm film, like ~16mm and ~8mm formats.  They do cost money but it's not prohibitive.

Sub-35 film perhaps but 35mm & 65mm remain cost prohibitive. Also speaking of Yedlin he's kind of put his money where his mouth is and actually convinced Rian Johnson to shoot his last feature 100% digitally stating:

“I have just been a big film guy my entire life. It was Steve Yedlin, my cinematographer’s idea…he’s shot all of my movies, which we’ve always done on film. And he’s also a very technically-adept color science guy. Steve basically has a philosophy, it’s based in facts. From Steve’s perspective, right now with imaging technology, there’s no reason that what you capture your image on needs to define the look of what you’re doing. What he told me over and over again is it’s harder for him to make film look like film, than make digital look like film. Johnson then went on to describe that, following being captured, the content is sent through the same digitization process, and that the application of grain isn’t something that’s difficult to do. ”

So in this case it looks like DIs & film emulation actually killed the use of film.

But as Noam Kroll states in the comments of the link you provided:

"I agree with you, that it is possible to very closely replicate the film look digitally, but it’s quite difficult to get right and is never identical. I’m astonished by the work of Steve Yeldin in this area, but for the average filmmaker (right now), it’s much simpler to just shoot on film if you want a film look. That may very well change in the future as technology continues to evolve, but right now, I think both formats each still have distinct advantages."

20 hours ago, kye said:

If I read those numbers correctly, you could shoot a 90 minute feature on S16 film, with a 5:1 shooting ratio, from ~$10K in total film costs (buying the film and processing and scanning) which would give you a 2K Prores file for you to colour grade yourself.  If you're making a feature then $10K isn't nothing, but it's also not a prohibitive cost either, assuming you're closer to the 'professional film' end of the spectrum rather than the 'student film' end.  

According to his math it adds up to $14,492 for 90mn at 5:1 ratio. And that's if you get a reduced price of the film stock.

Still that is relatively affordable for 90mn feature. It's actually dead cheap if you're shooting a 30 second commercial, 4mn music video or 8mn short film. And that's why S16 is currently very popular in those segments. I know several local DPs that currently specialise in it, like 100%. I also know 20 year old film students that shoot S16 as well (ok they have rich parents so not your typical 'poor' student but still).

In the end its my opinion that its really all part of a trend, like anamorphic, 4:3 aspect ratio or even full-frame. 

I love the cynical yet so true commentary of this guy about "selling cool" in the commercial world via such trends..

 

[kye]

4 hours ago, Django said:

I think what you're saying was historically true in the 70s/80s but doesn't hold anymore due to the extensive use of DIs and green screen:

Limited use of 65 mm film was revived in the late 1970s for some of the visual effects sequences in films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, mainly because the larger negative did a better job than 35 mm negative of minimizing visible film grain during optical compositing. 65 mm was the primary film format used at VFX pioneer Douglas Trumbull's facility EEG (Entertainment Effects Group), which later became Boss Film Studios, run by former Industrial Light & Magic alum Richard Edlund. Since the 1990s, a handful of films (such as Spider-Man 2) have used 65mm for this purpose, but the usage of digital intermediate for compositing has largely negated these issues. Digital intermediate offers other benefits such as lower cost and a greater range of available lenses and accessories to ensure a consistent look to the footage.

That being said, IMAX 65mm (70mm is the projection format btw) is relatively unparalleled as far as IQ with a true equivalency of about 18K in resolution. The frames are 69.6mm x 48.5mm which even beats Alexa 65's 54mmx25mm. The particular DoF & aspect ratio also gives a special look & immersive feel. So really there is no digital equivalent. 

 Today there are only a handful of directors in the world that shoot 65mm film. And only a handful of IMAX cameras even available for rental (at one point there were only 4). It is so expensive and complicated that still only short sequences are usually shot with them. Christopher Nolan is the only director in recent times that shoots exclusively in 65mm AFAIK. He's credited even by Tarantino to having brought back that particular format to use in blockbuster productions.

But for Nolan, Tarantino & Johnson.. they've always said that they shoot film because they love the look (no matter if its 35mm or 65mm). So I really don't think its a "specialist tool" thing for VFX units but really an aesthetic choice. For the last Star Wars films the visual template was the original trilogy so that kind of explains the use of film and hiring a known film shooting combo such as Johnson/Yedlin. The use of CGI/VFX was actually quite restraint on shots involving camera work compared to the previous Lucas prequel trilogy. A lot of animatronics were used, virtual production and basically just real props, real explosions etc. Nolan & Tarantino also advocate such real old-school FX. I mean its kind of silly to go through all the hassle of shooting in film only to integrate massive digital CGI/FX. 

 

Sub-35 film perhaps but 35mm & 65mm remain cost prohibitive. Also speaking of Yedlin he's kind of put his money where his mouth is and actually convinced Rian Johnson to shoot his last feature 100% digitally stating:

“I have just been a big film guy my entire life. It was Steve Yedlin, my cinematographer’s idea…he’s shot all of my movies, which we’ve always done on film. And he’s also a very technically-adept color science guy. Steve basically has a philosophy, it’s based in facts. From Steve’s perspective, right now with imaging technology, there’s no reason that what you capture your image on needs to define the look of what you’re doing. What he told me over and over again is it’s harder for him to make film look like film, than make digital look like film. Johnson then went on to describe that, following being captured, the content is sent through the same digitization process, and that the application of grain isn’t something that’s difficult to do. ”

So in this case it looks like DIs & film emulation actually killed the use of film.

But as Noam Kroll states in the comments of the link you provided:

"I agree with you, that it is possible to very closely replicate the film look digitally, but it’s quite difficult to get right and is never identical. I’m astonished by the work of Steve Yeldin in this area, but for the average filmmaker (right now), it’s much simpler to just shoot on film if you want a film look. That may very well change in the future as technology continues to evolve, but right now, I think both formats each still have distinct advantages."

According to his math it adds up to $14,492 for 90mn at 5:1 ratio. And that's if you get a reduced price of the film stock.

Still that is relatively affordable for 90mn feature. It's actually dead cheap if you're shooting a 30 second commercial, 4mn music video or 8mn short film. And that's why S16 is currently very popular in those segments. I know several local DPs that currently specialise in it, like 100%. I also know 20 year old film students that shoot S16 as well (ok they have rich parents so not your typical 'poor' student but still).

In the end its my opinion that its really all part of a trend, like anamorphic, 4:3 aspect ratio or even full-frame. 

I love the cynical yet so true commentary of this guy about "selling cool" in the commercial world via such trends..

 

Great post, and lots of interesting things to pick up on.

The idea that rather than shooting a large VFX scene on film and then doing the VFX on that, you'd instead just do it completely CGI is an interesting one, and something I'd imagine would be increasingly attractive.  I'm reminded of the projection screen from The Mandalorian and how it has replaced other types of VFX processes (it's obviously VFX, but it's VFX done in pre and prod rather than in post - what a concept!).

In terms of getting the film look, then I think it really depends on how picky you want to be.  For example, in one of the colourist sessions I watched (from a working pro colourist, not a YT colourist...  it might have been Walter Volpatto but not sure) the colourist said that a large number of projects (maybe more than half?) get graded under a print-film emulation LUT (PFE) like the Kodak 2383, and that it was kind of an unspoken secret of the colour grading world - that everyone does it and people just don't talk about it or easily admit to it.  (This, of course, is a process that was common when DI went back onto film for distribution because the colour profiles of the film for distribution would need to be taken into account).  Does that mean that the majority of professionally colour graded projects have the film look?  I'd suggest not, but what about those with PFE and grain?  What about if they also add halation? etc etc..

However, if you're genuinely after a film look, then you're basically screwed because Steve Yedlin was forced to make his own software to do it because nothing available was up to the task.  I've seen colourists casually mention that they always use a film grain overlay that is scanned from real film because no film grain emulation they've ever seen was realistic.  I don't know about you, but I sure as hell can't tell real film grain from the well-designed emulations.

Is it a trend?  Sure.  I've come to realise that trends in things are based on the fact that we think something is uncool because our parents or grandparents did it, but when the next generation comes along and is too young to see that (or remember it) then those negative associations aren't there and so it becomes a rich source of ideas for the next trends.  This happens like clockwork in music and fashion, where the fashions of 20 years ago are revisited, but in a new and more integrated way, into the current fashions.  The quest to be 'new' also means that things tend to oscillate around various parameters like how natural/artificial something is, analog/digital, clean/dirty, happy/sad, etc.  
I suspect that the film look would rise up, peak, and with a long tail, will gradually decline, but with various elements of it that have lasting appeal being gradually incorporated into the ongoing repertoire to be drawn upon at times that are deemed appropriate.  For example, black and white is still used occasionally, despite us having had colour for longer than most of us can remember, but it's only used in ways that we've since collectively settled on as being appropriate (e.g., getting a timeless or vintage feel, perhaps for very ombre pieces, etc).

Which elements of the film look will persist is interesting.  I think we could do without the overblown saturation that it had in various scenarios (for example the glowing pink/orange hues that parts of the face could generate) but the contrast curve is likely to be with us for a long time and the orange/teal look, while not being explicitly from film per-se, will definitely stay with us indefinitely, and for the quite sensible reason that it makes skintones stand out against the background more.

The Wandering DP YT channel is just spectacular, and that one in particular!  His videos are peppered with all sorts of amusing little quips about various aspects of things, and for me, being someone who doesn't work in the industry but understands enough to get what the joke is referencing I find them absolutely hilarious.  He raises a good point in that video that shooting 4:3 and on film is something new and different, and I know this is a little OT but it's worth mentioning that there are other dimensions that can also be pushed.  Here's a video outlining a few:

 

[BTM_Pix]

About the camera though...

Good news for all E-mount owners in general but very relevant for the FX30 is that Meike have announced an EF to E mount version of their drop in variable ND adapter.

Turns the FX30 (or FX3 if you want full frame) into a very compact Cinecorder for $199

https://meikeglobal.com/products/mk-efte-c?variant=43529048326372

 

[kye]

29 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

About the camera though...

Good news for all E-mount owners in general but very relevant for the FX30 is that Meike have announced an EF to E mount version of their drop in variable ND adapter.

Turns the FX30 (or FX3 if you want full frame) into a very compact Cinecorder for $199

https://meikeglobal.com/products/mk-efte-c?variant=43529048326372

 

How well does the AF work with Sony cameras and EF lenses with an adapter?  Is it a problem, or all good?

[kye]

12 hours ago, A_Urquhart said:

Not really sure what the last few pages have been about? Are we trying to justify an APS-C sensor as being good enough for a Netflix or Theatrical release?

Maybe Arri should weigh in here on why they would have spent hundreds of thousands of euro on developing a new S35 camera that is not good enough for the big time. Maybe every rental house I know, that all have ordered and received their new S35 sensor Arri camera could also weigh in here? With so much $$ at stake, you'd think they all would have done some research to learn that nothing less than full frame is really acceptable today. 

If only Arri, the rental houses and top DP's watched YouTube reviewers .....a lot of money could have been saved by not buying or even developing a useless 'crop' sensor camera.  

 

 

 

😉

In a word, yes!