Alexa sxt why they can and we can’t?

JMtheDP said:
I am certainly never going to put the F35 down, however the issue we all face is the camera can be as good or bad as you want, it is the perception of people hiring you or it that decide whether something is or isn't rentable.

I shoot around half of my F65 work with the camera in 1080P mode. In truth image quality was actually not a deciding factor at all in my upgrade decision.

i do not consider the F5,55,RED ONE,BM4K or many other cameras to be proper 4k cameras. Sadly marketing people run far too many things and you will see a million people talking about the merits of 4k vs 5k but hardly any discussing 12 vs 16 bit ad converters.

the good news is, without this situation, F35s would not be the price they are.
Click to expand...


Do you find that the F65 is more requested than the F35? Where it lives, which is on the same top level the Epic and Alexa live, it seems to me it's the same uphill battle that is to sell the F35 to an Alexa world. The difference is it records 4K. But that doesn't seem to be enough to lure people who want to initially shoot on the Alexa. So if I was going to buy a camera solely based on the intention of having a more requested high-end production camera than the F35, the only thing that makes any sense is an ARRI.

I fully agree that marketing drives everything these days. It seems it's all only for bragging rights. Cameras that claim to shoot 4K but use Bayer sensors with barely 4K resolution, everybody requesting ProRes 444 when no Bayer camera can actually output 444 so no point in recording it. I watched a NAB 2015 video with GL Optics talking about their new rehoused lens set based on Canon FD. He goes on to mention that as they are full frame they will cover 8K no problem. I'm thinking, never mind the coverage, will old lenses designed in the 1970's actually resolve 8K when many modern cheaper lenses have trouble with 4K? The list goes on. It seems all is just about the bragging rights. Nobody is very interested in the "truth".
 
Viddovation said:
Yes, the F35 has 12.4 megapixels in photosites, six per each RGB pixel at 1080. Six - not three. Half of those photosites are used in dynamic range processing and image sharpness, edge detection, etc... but they never get to a place in the camera where you can record them. Even in RGB 4:4:4 12 bit, you're only recording 6.2MP of RGB data.

At the end of the day, the F35 was designed for 1080p. It may upscale very well, and using custom algorithms could certainly help, but as has been said, it's a fight against ignorance.

I can't help thinking that soon we'll be drowning in high pixel perfection. 8k. 16k. why not 32k? Just wait, in twenty years, the hip youngsters will want a retro lo-fi "Vaseline over the lens" 1080p look.
Click to expand...

If we go by what's on the paper I have to agree with you. But the F35 defies it's own logic.

It should be only a HD camera. But regardless of what the math, specifications, official claims or prejudiced market perceptions say, point a F35 to a resolution chart and we will see it resolves well beyond 2K. We don't even have to look at a test chart. Just look at F35 and F3 material side by side and it becomes very clear which is the HD camera and which is resolving beyond 2K. The F3 is a true and pure HD camera and resolves the Full HD raster. That's not the problem. So the pixel over sampling definitely makes a difference with the F35.

To me having a camera that resolves more than the format it is recording to is better than having the opposite, which is what you get with all 4k cameras but the F65 and Dragon and also with the ARRIs, even at 2.8k and 3.2k. This is what complicates the topic of this thread. The starting resolution ARRI claims for the Alexa upscalling is based on the output of the sensor. But we all know that being a Bayer sensor it is not outputting all they are claiming. So they are actually starting from a much lower point.

And it's not only in resolution that the F35 over delivers and defies it's own logic. The official claim is 12-stops of dynamic range. But it can easily do 13-stops and if you want to use noise reduction in post, which most newer cameras do in camera, including the Alexa, the F35 can match these newer "14-stops" cameras of late. All with an image I much prefer even if it was 11-stops.

It seems Sony under promised and over delivered in everything with the F35. In this current market reality of over promises and under deliveries it is sure a refreshment.
 
Aaveum said:
If we go by what's on the paper I have to agree with you. But the F35 defies it's own logic.

It should be only a HD camera. But regardless of what the math, specifications, official claims or prejudiced market perceptions say, point a F35 to a resolution chart and we will see it resolves well beyond 2K. We don't even have to look at a test chart. Just look at F35 and F3 material side by side and it becomes very clear which is the HD camera and which is resolving beyond 2K. The F3 is a true and pure HD camera and resolves the Full HD raster. That's not the problem. So the pixel over sampling definitely makes a difference with the F35.

To me having a camera that resolves more than the format it is recording to is better than having the opposite, which is what you get with all 4k cameras but the F65 and Dragon and also with the ARRIs, even at 2.8k and 3.2k. This is what complicates the topic of this thread. The starting resolution ARRI claims for the Alexa upscalling is based on the output of the sensor. But we all know that being a Bayer sensor it is not outputting all they are claiming. So they are actually starting from a much lower point.

And it's not only in resolution that the F35 over delivers and defies it's own logic. The official claim is 12-stops of dynamic range. But it can easily do 13-stops and if you want to use noise reduction in post, which most newer cameras do in camera, including the Alexa, the F35 can match these newer "14-stops" cameras of late. All with an image I much prefer even if it was 11-stops.

It seems Sony under promised and over delivered in everything with the F35. In this current market reality of over promises and under deliveries it is sure a refreshment.
Click to expand...

I think the modern camera market - proliferated by RED, Blackmagic, and Canon, has been overrun by the marketing and sales departments, who are quick to escalate a numbers war, where any specification they can find a way to justify as true is marketed to the fullest extent. They're selling numbers, not actual performance. And as you point out, even Arri is being forced into the fray... I suspect things like Netflix's demand that all their shows be shot in 4k was a gut punch to DPs who really wanted to shoot Arri instead of RED or Sony, and Arri is trying to make sure those DPs now can meet that technical requirement, even if, as you point out, they're fudging it.

The F35 wasn't born to fight today's numbers game. It was designed to be the pinnacle of digital cinema and was sold on the promise of beautiful images worthy of towering screens. How it accomplished it wasn't as important as that it did. And at it's pricepoint and with the competition it faced when released, there was no need to do so. If anything, at that time, the marketing war was simply to show stunning images that convinced DPs that they could replace film with digital and save on post.

So yes - that was an under-promise over-deliver, over-engineered monster, with a price tag to match. And now the market has devolved into a lowest-bidder-take-all Thunderdome madhouse, where numbers are touted instead of reliability or ease with which beautiful images are acheived in post.

But - I do need to clarify that in regards to the F3 - the F3 only has 3.36 Megapixels. The F35 has 12.4. And even though you can only scan 6.2MP out of the F35, that's still close to double the F3, so any way you slice it - the F35 has an incredible edge, and is going to give you better resolution. The F3 is Full HD as a Bayer sensor, but only at 422, it's 444 is a cheat and a lie. That's not to say it doesn't look good, but it's not sourced from true 444 photosite data. By contrast the F35 oversamples at 12.4, halves it to 6.2, and then sends out true 444 in 12 bit. It's sensor is exactly sized for 1080p, and the readout is not going to look as good at any other frame size - ever. You could use a 4k upconverter, but in most cases you might as well let the end user's TV do that for you, instead.

Mind you, you could record 444 from the F35, and since the RGB stripe sensor gives you location mapping for every single one of those 6.2MP, you could use that mapping in an upscaling algorithm specific to the F35 to generate higher resolution footage, even 4k. However, what you gain in resolution you lose in color fidelity. Because while intelligent resolution guesses could be made (but not with 100% accuracy), the color guesses would be more prone to error. In my opinion it's just not worth it. I've come to the conclusion that if a client demands 4k, I'll shoot something that has a 4k sticker on the side. If they tell me they want the most beautiful and cinematic music video ever, then I'll show them F35 footage.
 
The F65 is not really "requested" as such, but neither were my F35 or before that my F900.

However everyone who has shot with it has loved it and everyone who has worked with the material has loved it.

I bought the F65 because I wanted to have much of the look and features of the F35, but being able to offer genuine 4K and raw when required.

I have just bought a set of Master Primes and may try and do a few sample shots from that for people here to look at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top