Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1521222324252627 LastLast
Results 241 to 250 of 265
  1. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    Do CineD's ARRI's numbers sound good?
    I'm not necessarily surprised with CineD's numbers. Unless they screwed up somewhere (which is easy to do when trying to conduct these types of tests) they did use the same method for all cameras, and 13.8 stops is pretty close to the 14 stops that ARRI had always claimed. As mentioned, internal noise reduction will help the cameras that do have it to get a sort of "inflated" score.

    For me personally the thing I always marvel at with the ALEXA's are the latitude it has displayed, and this has been consistent in tests from several different parties. The ALEXA always leaves the other cameras in the dust, which really is amazing for a camera with technology that is several years old compared to the newer offerings from the other manufacturers. That ALEV dual gain sensor is so good!


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Tom Roper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,315
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    Do CineD's ARRI's numbers sound good?
    - Gunther says they are the highest ever tested by CineD, the older Alexa Classic a bit better than the Mini-LF.

    - Gerald Undone tested the Sony 8K A1 using the same method and criteria as Gunther and reported the same or about the same as the A7SIII.

    - The Ursa 12K betters the Pocket 6K by a tad yet has even smaller pixel pitch. The pitch is a factor and certainly matters, so a little bit of this, little bit of that, sensors get better.

    - I requested that Gunther retest the Alexa and I'm grateful he did. But since it was mentioned that 13.8 was 'good enough' to confirm Arri's claim of 14 stops, hitherto said to be a number conservatively reported by Arri, I would add this; any number for DR reported by Gunther or Gerald is more conservative than what the manufacturers will sometimes report because there is no standard that says you have to use SNR=2 as the criteria. Using SNR=1 every camera gains a stop so BMD claiming 13 for the Pocket series is right on, Arri getting 14.8 at SNR=1 confirms Arri have conservative rating as reported, Sony claiming 15+ for FX9 seems suspect even at SNR=1 and Canon claiming 15 is similarly optimistic.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,609
    Default
    The FX3 test is probably more interesting than the A7SIII test because of the NR. Or maybe A7SIII raw out


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Teddy_Dem View Post
    I'm not necessarily surprised with CineD's numbers. Unless they screwed up somewhere (which is easy to do when trying to conduct these types of tests) they did use the same method for all cameras, and 13.8 stops is pretty close to the 14 stops that ARRI had always claimed. As mentioned, internal noise reduction will help the cameras that do have it to get a sort of "inflated" score.

    For me personally the thing I always marvel at with the ALEXA's are the latitude it has displayed, and this has been consistent in tests from several different parties. The ALEXA always leaves the other cameras in the dust, which really is amazing for a camera with technology that is several years old compared to the newer offerings from the other manufacturers. That ALEV dual gain sensor is so good!
    Agreed. Yeah, their numbers generally reflect the experiences I've had.

    And I do believe that one extra half a stop makes a huge difference in digital cinema cameras. Because often, in the real world lighting conditions, that extra half a stop or two really helps tackle some extreme conditions. 80-90% of the time one can work around these issues, and the Gemini and Venice really get through almost everything an Alexa can, and with some added benefits. The Gemini is smaller and easier on batteries, and the Venice has the in built 1 stop ND system etc. The two ISO modes helps, but is semi gimmicky. I think if going for a gritty low light look, then yes, the low light modes on these cinema cameras is awesome to have, but it won't give off a clean polished look just yet. maybe next generation.

    The Mini LF being higher resolution can handle less NR and still look amazing. I'd imagine some of those stops are recoverable. All I know, is that the Mini LF is gorgeous. Currently the only digital cinema camera that has a real leg up. The Venice is doing something interesting, but still uninspiringly technical. And the Gemini is nice because it is just low cost enough to own, while nipping at the heels of Venice and Arri. Every other camera just starts to fall off imho, into more and more pros and cons.

    I think Norbro mentioned a while back that sometimes Mini LF footage doesn't look all that "Arri". And I agree. I think the trend towards cleaner images does sort of bring the Mini LF back into Red and Venice territory. Making things clean shaves off that extra stop or half a stop advantage, and makes a very clean a sterile image. One of Arri's advantages is that their noise is actually usable, while most other cameras seem to drift into a digital noise signature.

    Mini LF is not perfect, but it certainly builds on the AlevIII sensor, and just adds full glass advantages and finer grain, allowing for an even deeper push. First time I worked along side the LF, the first shot was the sunrise light hitting the main character with no bounce or anything, and it handled the mixed colour temps and hard light so insanely well, it really was the first time I really loved a digital camera. Several years ago, I remember seeing some early demo footage from the Red Dragon, and that was the first time I really felt, between resolution, colour science, and DR etc, that I no longer needed to shoot on film, but the camera still lack that "love" factor SOOC.


    Contrary to the terminology of LF vs s35, the Red Gemini in 5K 17:9(FF), is about the same size as the Mini LF in 16:9 mode. both are shooting about 31mm x 17mm. I've actually found that with most supposed "FF35" video cameras in 16x9 modes, is that the Gemini is almost identical in crop. Of course, going to Open Gate or 2.39:1 modes on the Mini LF, you gain a few mm on each side, getting up to ~36mm wide.


    1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
    - Gunther says they are the highest ever tested by CineD, the older Alexa Classic a bit better than the Mini-LF.
    I didn't expect that. I know they stated in the cineD article that they believe the Mini LF was less denoised, but my assumption would have been that they tuned the shadows on the Mini LF to be a bit richer and cleaner by suppressing them, rather than lifting and denoising. Just a simple and slight crushing of the shadows. So in that way, there are still a couple stops buried underneath, but also might at first blush appear to have a hint less DR. Which for me, seems evident in some Mini LF footage, it looks almost like Panavision DXL2 in the DR department at times. A slight clean and higher end video feel, rather than the digital film emulation at times.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Tom Roper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,315
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    Which for me, seems evident in some Mini LF footage, it looks almost like Panavision DXL2 in the DR department at times. A slight clean and higher end video feel, rather than the digital film emulation at times.
    Of the Panavision DXL2, speaking as a consumer of high end only, not a cameraman; for my entertainment HDR is the best expression of DR currently, and what you can do with it. The Panavision (Red) DXL2 is my current favorite, best expression of HDR, notably the AppleTV+ series, 'The Morning Show'.

    Some of the other HDR from Arri, Mini, LF, 65, Alexa are notable:

    Spectre
    Snowden
    Passengers
    Altered Carbon - This was the best Arri series for HDR and WCG cinematography but excessive use of extreme shallow dof was overdone. I wanted to see a bit of background at times.

    But for my entertainment money, the productions made with Red Cameras look the best, including Red Xenomorph used for the Netflix series, 'Mindhunter'.

    Perhaps 'Top Gun' when it ever comes out will change my mind but so far I don't think Venice did any favors to 'The Crown', could be because no more Claire Foy, not sure but the series went bland to me. I expect others won't agree.


    2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
    Of the Panavision DXL2, speaking as a consumer of high end only, not a cameraman; for my entertainment HDR is the best expression of DR currently, and what you can do with it. The Panavision (Red) DXL2 is my current favorite, best expression of HDR, notably the AppleTV+ series, 'The Morning Show'.

    Some of the other HDR from Arri, Mini, LF, 65, Alexa are notable:

    Spectre
    Snowden
    Passengers
    Altered Carbon - This was the best Arri series for HDR and WCG cinematography but excessive use of extreme shallow dof was overdone. I wanted to see a bit of background at times.

    But for my entertainment money, the productions made with Red Cameras look the best, including Red Xenomorph used for the Netflix series, 'Mindhunter'.

    Perhaps 'Top Gun' when it ever comes out will change my mind but so far I don't think Venice did any favors to 'The Crown', could be because no more Claire Foy, not sure but the series went bland to me. I expect others won't agree.
    I haven't watched much content in HDR. I can see what you are saying though, and it certainly changes the feel of any footage. But I think what you are seeing is more about the style of the people making the films than the cameras. Also, as the trend and taste for cleaner images seems to be quickly replacing the film emulated looks, there may be less stigma on non-Arri cameras going forward. Where the Arri has excelled is in how far the footage can be pushed around, but with a good team, I don't think it really matters which of the top three get used. The side benefit of the DXL2 is the often tight collaboration with Light Iron.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Default
    What I've found with testing and working with Red cameras of late, is that they are a bit of a blank slate. Most shooters just aren't that technical and they rarely get the best out of them, compare to Arri or Venice that might set it up really nicely without the need to really get in and do some LUT building and post work. Although, the Arri look has become so ubiquitous, it is kind of boring now. Still, I think the Arri digital negative is crazy fat and can dial in a lot of looks, but doesn't seem to get as adventurous treatment. There is a thread about Zack Snyder's Justice league and it is interesting to see how different and stylized that film can look between the versions. The light ratios and such can't change, but the colours and contrast look drastically different. Once in a digital workflow, it is really Yedlin 10010010101.

    The "Arri" look has come full circle and almost become a limiter. Whereas years ago, producers were demanding 4K, and artists were wanting freedom to shoot 2K, not creatives are being asked to shoot Arri, regardless of creative preference. it is ironic in a way. We're at time when it is more about the team than any one factor.
    Last edited by James0b57; 04-21-2021 at 04:11 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Tom Roper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    1,315
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by James0b57 View Post
    What I've found with testing and working with Red cameras of late, is that they are a bit of a blank slate. Most shooters just aren't that technical and they rarely get the best out of them, compare to Arri or Venice that might set it up really nicely without the need to really get in and do some LUT building and post work. Although, the Arri look has become so ubiquitous, it is kind of boring now. Still, I think the Arri digital negative is crazy fat and can dial in a lot of looks, but doesn't seem to get as adventurous treatment. There is a thread about Zack Snyder's Justice league and it is interesting to see how different and stylized that film can look between the versions. The light ratios and such can't change, but the colours and contrast look drastically different. Once in a digital workflow, it is really Yedlin 10010010101.

    The "Arri" look has come full circle and almost become a limiter. Whereas years ago, producers were demanding 4K, and artists were wanting freedom to shoot 2K, not creatives are being asked to shoot Arri, regardless of creative preference. it is ironic in a way. We're at time when it is more about the team than any one factor.
    Yedlin 1001..Lol..

    Have you seen 'The Morning Show'? Let me tell you, I knew nothing about it beforehand, but from the cast, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, Steve Carell, Billy Crudup, Mark Duplass, Karen Pittman, Brett Butler, Martin Short, Kelly Clarkson I had it pegged for comedy. Imagine my shock. I literally paused the program to see if I had clicked on the wrong title.

    Shot with the DXL2 in 8K, I have literally never seen anything like it. Whereas Arri has the market cornered for beauty, softness, TMS is drama, quite depressing at times. It was no commercial for Aveeno or Neutrogena. Reality through neutrality, the series has a very real feel to it, with nuanced characters and acting. Tremendous DR and not simply a clean look, although it's anything but dirty. It manages something of a film look, more modern, more highly detailed but not sterile, not absent of texture or grain. It perfectly expresses its intent and never loses its grip. It's one of the best for exploiting the benefits of HDR visuals without shouting them.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Roper View Post
    Yedlin 1001..Lol..

    Have you seen 'The Morning Show'? Let me tell you, I knew nothing about it beforehand, but from the cast, Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Aniston, Steve Carell, Billy Crudup, Mark Duplass, Karen Pittman, Brett Butler, Martin Short, Kelly Clarkson I had it pegged for comedy. Imagine my shock. I literally paused the program to see if I had clicked on the wrong title.

    Shot with the DXL2 in 8K, I have literally never seen anything like it. Whereas Arri has the market cornered for beauty, softness, TMS is drama, quite depressing at times. It was no commercial for Aveeno or Neutrogena. Reality through neutrality, the series has a very real feel to it, with nuanced characters and acting. Tremendous DR and not simply a clean look, although it's anything but dirty. It manages something of a film look, more modern, more highly detailed but not sterile, not absent of texture or grain. It perfectly expresses its intent and never loses its grip. It's one of the best for exploiting the benefits of HDR visuals without shouting them.
    iíve not seen it in HDR yet. i saw the pilot. in SDR it was not particularly memorable, but certainly top tier production.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 25 of 27 FirstFirst ... 1521222324252627 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •