How come expensive camera's look so much better?

[IronFilm]

15 hours ago, MrSMW said:

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!

The point I was making, is that if a production runs into even merely just thirty minutes of overtime, or/and has a very slight increase to post production costs, then those additional costs to production would totally wipe out any "savings" they might get from renting a cheaper camera than an ARRI/Sony/RED/Varicam.

13 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

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.

I love this feature as a Boom Op and Sound Mixer!! (nothing to do with an actor entering the frame though, I mean for our purposes)

13 hours ago, Clark Nikolai said:

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

Huge time savings having an ARRI on set vs "random Camera X" that nobody has ever worked with before. 

5 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

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...

A great analogy.  (to carry on this analogy: you'd save time using a F1 over a Camry at the race track, but you'd lose time if you used the F1 for a shopping trip. Ditto cameras, it could be "fast" or "slow" to use, depending on the type of set it's being used on)

Now excuse me while I go do this week's grocery shopping in a F1....

[Django]

On a pure IQ level, mirrorless has definitely made significant strides wether in DR, color science, resolution, rolling shutter etc. And more importantly now with chunky internal RAW/ProRes/10-bit/Log files the gap towards high-end cinematic imagery has definitely narrowed significantly. RED/ARRI still rule in highlight roll off, DR but all the extra mileage you see on an image is indeed mostly lens, light, color grading related.

On a related note, with CST in Davinci you can transform your log footage to RED/ARRI Clog and apply their LUTs & look files. Results may vary but the gap isn't as big as you'd think.

[ND64]

Its like 18-55mm kit lens situation. Everybody thinks its a junk lens, because they've seen photos taken by that kind of lens, and most of them are not impressive; so they thought its a lens problem. But in reality, the proportion of amateur photographers who were still trying to learn and explore, in total users of that lens, was very high (because it was a kit and shipped with their first DSLR), so what others were seeing wasn't the lens problem, it was users' skill problem. The small group of people who use $30,000 camera, are the same people who know how to extract as much as much as possible from their gear, know how to get perfect lighting, and how to color grade. So when you see a Alexa footage, there is big chance you're seeing a team of elites performance.

You see a discipline among elite groups, and its that when they find a winning formula, like the combination of attributes we call "Arri look", they stick with it. Thats how they made us addicted to it; as we were seeing that formula over and over again in many different movies, to the point that we collectively call it "cinematic", like any other formula is either inferior or not legit. 

[Tim Sewell]

11 hours ago, ND64 said:

as we were seeing that formula over and over again in many different movies, to the point that we collectively call it "cinematic"

I've said for a long time that the look generally accepted and desired as 'filmic' is, in fact, 'Arri'.

[Danyyyel]

On 2/9/2025 at 9:25 PM, newfoundmass said:

I mean it's not really fair to compare an Alexa to any of these more affordable cameras. It's an Alexa for a reason. When you buy one you aren't just paying for the camera itself, you're paying for the decades of research and development that went into the image processing and color science that gives it that Alexa look. That's what you're paying for when buying any of those higher end cameras.

The other part comes down to the sensor, too. Higher end cameras have sensors that are specifically developed for them. That's a huge difference. While these lower end cameras have software and processing that is tweaked to work with sensors they buy, the higher end cameras use sensors that were designed specifically for those cameras.

Finally, there is a Luca Forsyth video that compares several cameras, ranging from the FX3 all the way to Alexa 35. His results were pretty surprising.

 

Apart from the Alexa DR advantage, their is no huge difference in sensor from a Sony FX3 and a Venise ii. You just have to watch the test from CineD. In fact the likes of the Nikon Z9 (Sony based sensor), is better than the Venise ii in the true DR test, That is the latitude test. My guess because they privilege's speed over Noise/DR. 

[JulioD]

On 2/12/2025 at 12:28 AM, Tim Sewell said:

I've said for a long time that the look generally accepted and desired as 'filmic' is, in fact, 'Arri'.

Well to be fair they basically had done their homework on what film looked like because of the work they did on the Arriscan. In its time a revolutionary film scanner.  
 

The sensor in this ended up being what went into the first Alexa.  

The color science work was already done one way   They just reversed it  

 

[zerocool22]

On 2/12/2025 at 9:28 AM, Tim Sewell said:

I've said for a long time that the look generally accepted and desired as 'filmic' is, in fact, 'Arri'.

I think you are right. I just watched this video on youtube,and I said wow this looks nice, Wanted to see what lenses and camera they used. And offcourse it was an alexa with lomo anamorphics.... Allthough you have to take in consideration of the lightning, set design, talent and crew (people who use this type of gear usually have more experience overall). 

[kaylee]

On 2/19/2025 at 3:10 AM, zerocool22 said:

I think you are right. I just watched this video on youtube,and I said wow this looks nice, Wanted to see what lenses and camera they used. And offcourse it was an alexa with lomo anamorphics.... Allthough you have to take in consideration of the lightning, set design, talent and crew (people who use this type of gear usually have more experience overall). 

what video? lets get specific i wanna see

[Alexis Fontana]

I have worked with Red cameras all the way back from Red ONE, every Alexa camera except the 65 and Sony Venice 1 and 2. The reason that stuff shot on those cameras look better is because of the people using them. They're in a point in their career where working with reliable and professional customer supported camera-systems is necessary to deliver the expected level of craftmanship. If we're only talking about gathering data on the sensor, more than 95% of people can't tell the difference from a Pocket 6K and an Alexa Mini if handled by a professional DP. Yes rolling shutter, yes highlight latitude, but those are extremes.

One camera stands above the rest and that is the Alexa35 - i haven't been able to overexpose that camera yet, and it's built like a tank.

[PPNS]

i don't think they necessarily do.

not to suck my own dick too much, but here's some stills of work I've shot that I mostly like (and one i dislike). some pocket 4k, alexa and fx6 in the mix. some still have a lut on, some are graded by me, and some are graded by someone else with my intentions as a DP taken away. feel free to guess which is which and why, since i feel like you guys love doing that.

 

[MrSMW]

Really nice work!

[IronFilm]

I'd be surprised if the second to last one is ARRI

[j_one]

6 hours ago, PPNS said:

i don't think they necessarily do.

 

Wanted to pop in and say: these are some of the best images I’ve seen of work from this forums users. Well done. And you’re right. It’s hard to tell. Can a trained eye tell? Possibly, but that’s not the point.

(I’d love to get some insight to your approach to cinematography if you can spare it)

[PPNS]

On 2/24/2025 at 11:41 AM, IronFilm said:

I'd be surprised if the second to last one is ARRI

Bzz wrongo

 

On 2/24/2025 at 5:05 PM, j_one said:

Wanted to pop in and say: these are some of the best images I’ve seen of work from this forums users. Well done. And you’re right. It’s hard to tell. Can a trained eye tell? Possibly, but that’s not the point.

(I’d love to get some insight to your approach to cinematography if you can spare it)

thats very nice of you, thank you. the reason i posted these is because just looking at the end result, i wouldn’t know which camera was used for what, and i get paid to be a dp (at least from time to time).

i would consider myself a bit of a hack tbh, but i have some rules/logic that i try to adhere to

- limit the color palette

- avoid white. Walls, clothing, props, etc. Off white fixes the issues with white in clothing and props, but off white walls still feel like theyre white. if you’re stuck with them anyway, try to get the art dept to cover them up or go for a color wash.

- i like trying to use as much hard light as i can get away with

- i try to frame for depth, looking for layers and shapes. If there’s multiple shots being shot per scene, theres a million slight positioning adjustments happening to get optimal looking distances between subject and camera. 

- visual language: per project i ask myself, what kind of lensing is appropriate? Is this a piece that feels more wide, medium, telephoto? What are the exceptions to the language/when am I able to break the rules? 

- when theres a limited budget (in my case almost always), i prefer the budget to go to art, locations and lighting. what’s the point of lomo anamorphics if you’re in a tiny ugly white walled room?

- i like the combo of a strong contrasty lut + slightly softer glass + strong diffusion filter

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, PPNS said:

- avoid white.

That's what I keep telling my brides...but they don't listen 🤪

[j_one]

I appreciate the gear focus that dominate most discussions, but the nuggets of information and techniques like these are golden. Thank you.

7 hours ago, PPNS said:

- i like trying to use as much hard light as i can get away with

In order to create layers of depth/separation? Or another reason?

I’ve found having a lot of small cob units with spotlights or dishes to highlight subjects, coupled with big soft sources (panels, lite mats, 8x+ frames etc) to fill ambient are a solid go to when creating depth for interiors.

8 hours ago, PPNS said:

- i like the combo of a strong contrasty lut + slightly softer glass + strong diffusion filter

Nice one. Should I get in the habit of building a look/monitoring lut for each project?