How come expensive camera's look so much better?

[Andrew Reid]

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Also, who remembers that one talented dude guy filming in 720p on a canon rebel?  I think his name started with a "Z"?  Beautiful stuff because he knew how to use it.  Would it have been better if it was an ARRI?  Of course, but would that really affect the narrative?

[tupp]

5 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

Also, who remembers that one talented dude guy filming in 720p on a canon rebel?

Kendy Ty and his T2i?

[eatstoomuchjam]

As others have said, for the most part, proper lighting and grading is often more important than the image straight out of the camera.

Though with that said, Alexa is still the most flexible image that you'll find coming out of a camera, That's followed by Burano and V-Raptor and most recently, apparently, Ursa Cine (still needs more time for user tests to confirm/deny, but the tests on paper are impressive.

If you're shooting a film with a big budget, your A camera is almost definitely Alexa.  Why?  Because it's the most flexible image.  Because your high-end gaffer will automatically know how to light well for it.  Because your high-end editor and colorist will instantly know how to push the footage around and probably have pre-defined workflows for working with it.  Is it still the best image?  Arguable.

If you're shooting a decent budget indie flick, you're more likely to find Burano/Venice or V-Raptor?  Why?  Similar things to the above, but you're paying less than Alexa.

If you're shooting lower budget than that, it's a complete crapshoot.  It'll probably involve the letters F, X, and 6, but if it's a run and gun documentary, it might involve C300 and/or C70.

 

From what I've seen, if you want to penetrate the bigger productions, you're better off not trying to compete with Alexa for A camera, but to aim to make secondary cameras that fit in places where it doesn't.  Civil War, for example, famously used the Ronin 4D for a bunch of the handheld stuff because it's a quick/easy gimbal camera with decent autofocus.  I hear they're making inroads on other productions too for similar reasons - and on other stuff because, like, the 4d flex is great for tight spaces and/or car-to-car shots.

The most recent Mission Impossible and the upcoming one use Z Cam E2-F6 as crash cameras because they're cheap (for Hollywood), make a great image, and are reliable (no overheating, you can basically hammer nails with the body all day and then go record some video at night).  That footage of Tom Cruise flying off a cliff on a motorcycle?  Nearly all Z-Cam.

 

Anyway, the point is that the image SOOC on high-end cameras should look good.  Should it look THAT much better than a mirrorless camera in the hands of a proficient operator?  Nope.  Just a few weeks ago, Kye posted some stuff that he shot in Korea using, if I remember right, the original BM micro studio camera from like a hundred years ago.  Looked great.  You could project it in a cinema as part of a feature and the audience would be none the wiser to the camera used.

[fuzzynormal]

1 hour ago, tupp said:

Kendy Ty and his T2i?

There ya go.

[Andrew Reid]

At the specs level, an image is just the sensor + processing.

The processing in-camera has come on a long way as the ASIC / LSI lithography has shrunk to less than 5nm.

So from the GH2 to an X-H2 there is a HUGE difference in the image processing pipeline and codec.

However, with RAW the processing is up to your workstation and your eye.

So there the camera processing becomes irrelevant to a large extent.

So what is 'image quality' with RAW? This is the sensor alone, at least 99% and the other variables like lenses, lighting, etc. all have a huge impact on a camera test.

What is the end result you see on YouTube? This is the sensor RAW + human element and the processing in post, de-bayering and compression. So the sensor becomes now around 1/5th of the mix, and the other variables like grading make up the rest which is a lot.

Now, forget the test shots and add into the mix the actual content (story, sound, characters, VFX) of a creative shoot and that makes the pixel peeping aspect of things even less noticeable, but that's not to say the technical stuff isn't still important and relevant.

By the way...

Have any of you shot MotionCam on a high-end smartphone, it really shows this...

Cinema DNG and multi-frame computational RAW photography on a smartphone has a very similar dynamic range, colour and texture as your $30,000 cinema camera.

You are exchanging sensor size for temporal processing power... aka speeeeeed.

So it compensates for the fact that less light is being captured in just one frame.

I also think that the important bits of filmmaking far outweigh the "gap" in look between a phone and an ALEXA.

If the most important thing about a scene is whether there are some details visible in a window or not, there has to be something seriously wrong with the content.

[Andrew Reid]

Yeah, the cinematography and moody grading overcame the lack of resolution.

https://www.eoshd.com/lens/kendy-ty-t2i-one-guy-amazing-things-5-year-old-dslr/

But we still feel the need (myself included) to pixel peep.

I suppose it's a hobby if anything - whether it has any real creative use, is open to debate... In some way it is relevant, but it all depends on what serves the content and story, and the lighting and cinematography. Sometimes, that demands a Hi8 camcorder!

[newfoundmass]

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

99% of us don't have a display technology in our home to do justice to the source material... either not big enough, or not bright enough.

Very true. I've long said that most of us don't even have a television large enough to make the most out of 4K so the push for high resolution is kind of pointless.

5 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Difference between $3k (even some $1k like used S1H) cameras and $25,000 has never been smaller in terms of image quality. The ALEXA still has a dynamic range advantage, but it's only a few stops and not noticeable in every use case.

I agree in principle, THOUGH I do think the ALEXA still has more advantages than just dynamic range. People I know who work with it always tell me it's the easiest to get the grade they are looking for and for my eyes there is something about the image that feels more organic. I am, though, open to the idea that there is a level of bias when looking at footage you know is from an ALEXA.

[KnightsFan]

Even with extremely good technology, there is still an artistry and subjectivity in image creation. No cinema camera aims for "color accuracy above all else." Arri wants their images to look Cinematic--and at this point in time, many cinematographers' taste has been developed specifically by Arri's colors. Sony might have a choice between spending millions on user testing, expert opinions, and fine tuning, OR they could save all that money and probably not take much of a sales hit.

Fwiw, I have never liked Sony cameras in blind tests, however, I love Panasonic's S1 and S5 even compared to Arri. So I actually don't even believe that "expensive" cameras always look better. I also don't believe Sony is incapable of making more or less identical colors to the S5. Maybe they decided keeping the same pipeline is a better business investment, or their product managers prefer the Sony look out of pride, or different taste--or maybe I'm simply not their target audience.

[zerocool22]

6 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

There ya go.

Yes his work was great, I much liked his earlier work with the t2i vs the new camera that he is using now though.

[Tim Sewell]

17 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Because apart from the occasional ‘we did this with the FX3’, or, ‘shot on the iPhone X’, the entire industry is built around big & expensive cameras.

And that's because, at least in part, if 2 out of your 4 Alexas go down on set in the middle of the Amazonian rainforest Arri (or the rental house) will have replacements and/or technicians with you in under 48 hours. It's simply not worth it to provide that kind of support for 'cheaper' camera systems.

Obviously Alexas are also engineered for an exponentially higher level of reliability and resilience in the first place too.

[IronFilm]

18 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Is about the sum of it.

The camera is possibly…probably even the least most important part of the equation.

So why is Hollywood not shooting all their features on the S5II?

Because apart from the occasional ‘we did this with the FX3’, or, ‘shot on the iPhone X’, the entire industry is built around big & expensive cameras.

It's about the overall big picture workflow. 

If shooting with an ARRI Mini saves even a mere 30 minutes each day and makes post merely just 5% more efficient, then the total cost differences between renting an ARRI Mini vs S5II is totally nonexistent.

17 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

but in 2025 someone could absolutely take a sub $5000 camera, film a feature with it, and 99% of the people viewing it wouldn't know whether it was shot on an Alexa

Well, today in 2025 you can buy an ARRI itself (the old classic edition) for sub $5000!

  

10 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

If you're shooting a film with a big budget, your A camera is almost definitely Alexa.  Why?  Because it's the most flexible image.  Because your high-end gaffer will automatically know how to light well for it.  Because your high-end editor and colorist will instantly know how to push the footage around and probably have pre-defined workflows for working with it.  Is it still the best image?  Arguable.

Exactly. 

Even if we accept 100% (even though it's a very debatable claim indeed) that "Camera X" can look exactly as good as an ARRI, to use "Camera X" instead means you're going to have to spend money (because: time = money) of at least a couple of days for at least half a dozen people (Director/DP/Editor/VFX/PSM/Gaffer/1stAC/2ndAC/etc). Of them running tests, pushing/pulling it to its max, and ensuring compatibility with existing workflows. 

Even if that's merely $500/day for each person (a very low rate indeed, especially so for an HoD), that's $6K blown on costs at least (am using very conservative guesses here) just so that they can use "Camera X" instead of a mainstream well known choice. 

Those are utterly trivial costs when you consider the costs to rent the whole camera package across say the three weeks you need it for a low-ish budget film. (I say "low-ish" budget in the sense of say a Hallmark TV Movie of the week type of movie, or even something that costs 10x that. Of course as you move up to mid budget or AAA budget films, then saving a few pennies on camera rentals makes even less sense)

Makes no sense at all to spend $6K to try and save money on the camera package, when it only costs six grand ish or so for the entire rental cost (for a three week shooting period) to get an ARRI Mini package (just the body and basic supporting accessories, not counting lens etc) is merely six grand ish! 

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/arri-alexa-mini-premium-v-mount-kit-pl

Or even less.... for an ARRI AMIRA:

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/arri-amira-premium-kit-pl

And of course if you go for say Sony BURANO / RED RANGER Monstro / RED V-RAPTOR / RED DSMC2 GEMINI / Blackmagic Design URSA Mini Pro 4.6K G2 / etc, then these are still at least somewhat mainstream cameras and will be widely known/understood by others on set while still being even cheaper to rent for the length of the production:

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/sony-burano-8k-digital-motion-picture-camera 

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/red-ranger-monstro-8k-vista-vision-starter-kit 

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/red-v-raptor-8k-vv-dsmc3-starter-pack-v-mount 

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/red-dsmc2-gemini-5k-s35-premium-v-mount-kit

https://www.lensrentals.com/rent/blackmagic-design-ursa-mini-pro-4.6k-g2-premium-kit-pl 

 

[Andrew Reid]

8 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

Very true. I've long said that most of us don't even have a television large enough to make the most out of 4K so the push for high resolution is kind of pointless.

Back in the 1080p days, we had line skipping and it wasn't really 1080p in a lot of cases, so a full pixel readout was needed and that's why 4K was so attractive as it would overcome the binning, downsample to whatever resolution you wanted and looked great at 1080p in most cases.

Now we have a similar situation with 8K vs 4K because a lot of 4K is pixel binned from a higher resolution sensor, and 8K is a way to get that coveted full pixel readout again.

Funny how history repeats itself.

Just like with fascism.

Anyway where was I...

The current debate around specs leaves out the creative side, and that's fine... as the two can be talked about independently and are relevant to the art of cinema.

What bothers me about the current state of play though is social media influencers passing off the grading or camera matching work as somehow relevant to what the camera is doing, when actually RAW can be any look you like.

I also see a problem with overkill.

A lot of people obsess over resolution and then go out and shoot some boring advert for Instagram.

There's a lack of critical thinking there, and maybe a bit of ego.

[MrSMW]

2 hours ago, IronFilm said:

If shooting with an ARRI Mini saves even a mere 30 minutes each day and makes post merely just 5% more efficient, then the total cost differences between renting an ARRI Mini vs S5II is totally nonexistent.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should and I understand why the big production houses do what they do, but if the camera type was undisclosed, no one other than the folks who worked on the production would ever know!

99.9999999999999% of the consumer population do not peak behind the curtain because they have zero interest what is behind the curtain.

(It's a little old man in a green jacket playing an ARRI organ. Or could be an S5II/FX3/iPhone 17 organ).

 

[Clark Nikolai]

10 hours ago, newfoundmass said:

People I know who work with it always tell me it's the easiest to get the grade they are looking for and for my eyes there is something about the image that feels more organic.

So true. I assistant edited on a feature shot with a 2K Alexa and they (for some reason) recorded to ProResHQ. I found the files to be some of the nicest, easiest footage to prepare for the editor. The show had a colour grader at the end but before that point, one of my tasks was to colour grade test reels and rough edits and it was so easy and fast to do as the image that it had, even in ProRes was amazing.

The image is really nice and easy and quick to make it look good in post. This has budget advantages.

Another thing the DOP told me he liked about the Alexa is that the viewfinder shows you beyond the recorded image. This way you could anticipate, say, an actor about to enter the frame. This was something he had missed from the film days. Film cameras' viewfinders would show more of the image than you're getting and would have a frame guide to show you what you would get but you could see more on the sides than that.

He also said the menu on the side panel was fast and easy to navigate. Another time saving on set.

[Clark Nikolai]

3 hours ago, IronFilm said:

Well, today in 2025 you can buy an ARRI itself (the old classic edition) for sub $5000!

 

I just checked eBay. Yes, you can get an original Arri Alexa for less than CAN$5000 including the viewfinder.

We live in the golden age of cameras, Kids. Go make your movie!

[Snowfun]

I'd be confident that I am capable of making any camera - irrespective of price - look absolute garbage...

Ergo... it's not just the camera.

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, Snowfun said:

I'd be confident that I am capable of making any camera - irrespective of price - look absolute garbage...

Ergo... it's not just the camera.

I am equally as confident that my camera is capable of burning in my LUT saving me hours and hours of grading per job and no client ever has, or ever will ask for me to do anything further with the end result.

But then I am the opposite end of making movies and just a hack wedding vidiot.

It will not stop them asking me however if I have any footage of random Aunt Jane who flew in from Canada chatting with uni friend Sandeep with Uncle Herbert in the background chatting with my mum.

Nor is there any more footage of your empty dance floor. 

I once had a bride list 3 things I had not captured:

1. Blossom on a particular tree outside.

2. A chandelier that was in the entrance hall.

3. A brown leather sofa.

But I digress…

[mercer]

I hate those videos that try and compare a $1000 camera to an Alexa with a stupid thumbnail that suggests you'll be surprised by the results. Inevitably, you learn that the operator wasn't as good at using cameras as he was at making thumbnails, or they intentionally cripple the Alexa by shooting in ways to highlight the $1000 camera.

That said, I agree that probably 9 out of 10 times, nobody will realize what camera you shot your movie with as long as the story is good and engaging, but I do think that a couple of those people may feel like something was off without knowing why.

An Alexa costs 50K+ for a reason. And although I believe craft and resources lend to the final look of the film, the sensor, the Arri color science and its thick files are a piece of the puzzle.

A long time ago, I got hooked on my Canon 5Diii with ML Raw because it was the first time I had shot something where I looked at it and thought... man that almost looks like a real movie. So there are some "intangibles" involved because I am not that talented, nor that skilled. I have shot with a bunch of cameras since... GH5, GH6, Sigma FP, S5iiX, Canon R7, etc... and although the FP comes close, but even its 4K raw image is no match to my trusty, old 5D3 in gross old 1080p raw.

[mercer]

11 hours ago, zerocool22 said:

Yes his work was great, I much liked his earlier work with the t2i vs the new camera that he is using now though.

You're no slouch either... I believe it was one of your older 5D Mark iii ML Raw videos that helped me choose to go with a 5D! I think it had "Wolf" in the title?

[eatstoomuchjam]

4 hours ago, mercer said:

I hate those videos that try and compare a $1000 camera to an Alexa with a stupid thumbnail that suggests you'll be surprised by the results. Inevitably, you learn that the operator wasn't as good at using cameras as he was at making thumbnails, or they intentionally cripple the Alexa by shooting in ways to highlight the $1000 camera.

In a lot that I've seen, they conclude in the end that the Alexa's picture is nicer, but not 20x nicer (or whatever the price multiple is).  They're completely correct.  If you're an owner-operator shooting corporate talking heads or weddings or short films with a budget of about $1k, you'd be crazy to buy an Alexa for it.

On the other hand, if you're shooting a feature film with a budget of 200 million dollars and the cost for several Alexas is about 0.2% of your budget (as IronFilm pointed out), you're probably not thinking in terms of value, but about the "best" tool to create the image.

Similarly, you'd be crazy to buy a 12-18 million dollar F1 racecar to commute to work.  It's a terrible value compared to like, a Toyota Camry.  But if you show up on the track at Interlagos on race day driving a Camry...