F5: Anybody Using Anymore?

morgan_moore said:
'a lot of people' might not realise that even todays tech struggles to make a really good S35 4k sensor.

Especially when todays tech developments are pushed by people with the 'wrong' priorities.
Click to expand...

The other camera makers have managed it.. Arri Im sure has the money and know how.. I doubt that holding them back..cant be that hard for Arrfi to knock out an original 4K or FF sensor

Phase one..? sorry dont know that camera
 
Phase one - high end stills.

--

Others may or may not have managed it (good 4K s35)- one camp says f5 and Vari are good - another camp seems to feel they miss the Alexa mojo.

I do agree that Imo Arri are at risk because they just don't have the R and D muscle that the big Asian players have.

The next really awesome camera might be 20 phone chips "stuck together" :)
 
Grug said:
4k? Sure, but Red's had that too for ages. My point is that no one else has had a proper 4-perf 35mm equivalent sensor until now. Without a 'full aperture' 18mm high sensor, you've had to crop in on 2x anamorphic glass on every camera except Alexa's 4:3 sensor, or the newer Red Monstro, Sony Venice, and soon Kinefinity's LF.
Click to expand...


My point is Kinefinity has also had full height anamorphic in high resolution as well for many years now, not just RED. (and the Kinefinity MAVO LF wouldn't be 18mm high, but 24mm high!)
 
IronFilm said:
My point is Kinefinity has also had full height anamorphic in high resolution as well for many years now, not just RED. (and the Kinefinity MAVO LF wouldn't be 18mm high, but 24mm high!)
Click to expand...

Which model of theirs has had an 18mm high sensor David? I can't find any evidence of that, only 4:3 recording modes.
 
Donny 123 said:
Your joking right ?.. you would pay $100K for a camera with 2 x 10 year old sensors stuck together.. things havnt changed in sensor tech for 10 years .. what was wrong with the tube cameras.. great picture.. :)
Click to expand...

No, I'm not joking at all. If you haven't been passed yet, only an idiot would waste fuel to put more distance in between. You save it for when you are actually in danger of actually getting beaten.
 
Grug said:
Every shoot has it own particular needs, and if the Venice is able to deliver pretty pictures out of the box (which, from the samples we've seen so far, does look plausible) I think its particular set of features could absolutely make Sony some headway in the high-end of the market.

It's one of only three cameras in the world that currently offer 4k, full-height, 4-perf anamorphic recording (the others being Monstro and DXL2). That's a big draw card for anyone needing wanting to shoot 2x anamorphic, but having to deliver a natively 4k master. And it's massively cheaper than both of those other two options.

The 5 second boot time, and 8-steps of internal ND are going to hold a lot of appeal for productions that have to move FAST.

And the dual-native 2500 ISO base, could help DoPs negotiate better gear packages for themselves (better lenses, more technocrane or steadicam days etc.) by allowing them to more than halve their lighting and electricity requirements for studio work or night exteriors.

The lower rental cost of the camera itself, could also be enough to allow people to shoot with nicer, more-expensive lens packages they otherwise mightn't have the budget for.

All of these things are considerations that can push someone towards shooting something other than Arri.

The LF is magnificent though, and having all of your wireless functionality built-in is absolutely the way of the future.

I also just got to see the DXL2 in the flesh this week, and that camera is just beautifully setup for camera teams to work with. Hugely appealing stuff.

On the whole, we're just thoroughly spoilt for camera choices at the high-end for the moment. But, yes, I think the very appealing price point Sony has put it at, is going to translate into a lot of work for the camera.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said, apart from what concerns cost. I don't think it being cheaper will have any influence in people like Roger Deakins choosing to work with it. High end to me is this. This is the market Sony aims with Venice. Any bellow that and it's F55 market.
 
digitalinnovations said:
The VENICE seems to have lots of things going for it and in some ways it’s better than Alexa / Amira but what I am the most curious about is how the color / skin tone of VENICE will stack up against the Alev III?
Click to expand...

That and the higlights, workflow, menus, ergonomics, support, tech support, interaction with the company and everything else which makes Arri great. It's not only about one thing. Arri gets it all. The others struggle to get one thing.
 
Donny 123 said:
Oh yes sorry Canon.. too early in the morning.. yes Im sure Arri need a "true' 4K sensor for good or for bad.. if they want their gear on Netflix etc.. so why not come out with one.. rather than just cutting cutting out a double size old one..
Click to expand...

Because stuffing 4k worth of pixels in a S35 sensor is foolish. This is part of the reason the Arri's image is so good. Because they don't do that.
 
morgan_moore said:
Phase one - high end stills.

--

Others may or may not have managed it (good 4K s35)- one camp says f5 and Vari are good - another camp seems to feel they miss the Alexa mojo.

I do agree that Imo Arri are at risk because they just don't have the R and D muscle that the big Asian players have.
Click to expand...

But they have something much more important and that no other manufacturer can match. The know-how. They know the market and release exactly what will serve the market. Money can't buy that or the others would have passed Arri long ago. But they didn't.
 
Sttratos said:
Because stuffing 4k worth of pixels in a S35 sensor is foolish. This is part of the reason the Arri's image is so good. Because they don't do that.
Click to expand...

Yes agree.. as I said for good or for bad.. so why not make a new FF sensor like Venice to down sample to 4K.. there is no holding back the 4K thing unless there is a huge management change at Netflix and Amazon.. logic doesn't always win.. betamax was better than VHS.. I got work with my HDX900 up resing .. but a superior 720p Varicam was considered not HD.. Im not coming from an aesthetic angle .. as also stated Arri looks great .. but they have to stay in business
 
I'm opposite, I would have liked to see Sony oversample using more pixels for s35.

Mojo can be achieved through color science and dual gain simultaneous read where you can dramatically improve dynamic range without having to develop new fancy sensor. It's what ARRI has done.

But instead, manufacturers tend to go for one or two out of three of all these things. Nailing one missing another.
 
meh who knows.. so many ways to look at it. image, price, other newly announced cameras..

Images from Venice do look pretty appetizing however, i'll give it that.
 
...I'm guessing that nobody has tried to build their own simultaneous dual-gain "HDR" sensor like the one in the ALEXA because of an ARRI patent ???
 
starcentral said:
...Images from Venice do look pretty appetizing however, i'll give it that.
Click to expand...

That is a lot of my dilemma; for every pro there's a con. The VENICE seems to have better low-light capabilities / less noise, it's easily upgradable and has the underlying E-Mount so just about any lens can mount up. The AMIRA has that ARRI color, the layout is better suited my workflow (operator side controls, multiple XLR inputs, viewfinder is better suited for my style of shooting with the flip-out for framing without your eye pressed the viewfinder). Plus you can record a better than 10bit 422 in-camera with the AMIRA and I'll never drop the ~$10k on the R7 recorder with media to get a higher quality recording.
 
Yes Jeremy, its always a toss up no matter how you look at it. Best way is not to own any camera at all. :beer:


$34,000 USD - ready to shoot red gemini 5k s35 which is great for oversampling. newer ipp2 color proves something in my opinion. taller sensor for more vertical resolution when using anamorphic. 96 fps at 5K Full Format (5120 × 2700), 120 fps at 5K 2.4:1 (5120 × 2160).

$50,000 USD - arri mini. color science. HD/2k/3.2k/fake 4k. open gate. 200fps HD, 60p 3.2/4k. It's ARRI man !!!

$70,000 USD - venice, not mature until 2019. 4k s35 meh. 6k FF great. maybe better color. maybe better highlights. high ISO probably not out until end of 2018. Where is HFR and when is HFR? And quite certainly for over 60p you will need the R7.
 
starcentral said:
Yes Jeremy, its always a toss up no matter how you look at it. Best way is not to own any camera at all. :beer:
Click to expand...

I was not owning a camera was an option but where I am located it is not an option.

starcentral said:
$34,000 USD - ready to shoot red gemini 5k s35 which is great for oversampling. newer ipp2 color proves something in my opinion. taller sensor for more vertical resolution when using anamorphic. 96 fps at 5K Full Format (5120 × 2700), 120 fps at 5K 2.4:1 (5120 × 2160).
Click to expand...

I read a little about the camera but I need to look closer...I mean what does "ready to shoot" really mean? Their media is wildly overpriced - worse than Sony and at least with them i can use the adapter and XQD cards. I've just never really been interested in RED; their ecosystem is expensive.

For me, the VENICE would be $44k; basically just shooting the 4K S35 (unless a project required full frame or anamorphic in which case I would short term rent the license) and as I mentioned, I would never buy the R7. I don't need more resolution for my clients / deliverables - I have yet to deliver anything in even 4K. I just want better color than my FS7 and more DR.
 
By ready to shoot I meant all accessories you need to complete the package: 1TB media, card reader, canon mount, side module, 7" touch screen, battery, charger., camera body,.

RED's media is $2950 for 1TB. for my F55 it was $3600 for 2x 512GB cards (which is same price for newer AXSM cards that R7 will use). Per GB SXS cost double in price.. 4x 128GB cards (512GB) will set you back around $3600.

You could definitely save a bit of money not getting the R7 right away, or ever. But for that money doesn't the ARRI mini make sense? I think having the ARRI would go a bit further in aiding to get new work, or takeon more commercial or narrative work (if that was of any interest to you of course to begin with)
 
starcentral said:
...for my F55 it was $3600 for 2x 512GB cards (which is same price for newer AXSM cards that R7 will use). Per GB SXS cost double in price.. 4x 128GB cards (512GB) will set you back around $3600.
Click to expand...

Wow. I don't think I realized the SXS were that high.

starcentral said:
...But for that money doesn't the ARRI mini make sense? I think having the ARRI would go a bit further in aiding to get new work, or takeon more commercial or narrative work (if that was of any interest to you of course to begin with)
Click to expand...

Yes, that is absolutely my main interest outside of just "upping" my overall production value. I think where my real debate lies between the AMIRA and VENICE is ISO. ARRI obviously has the color but the VENICE appears to be cleaner in the darks (even at base exposure) and now that VENICE has dual base ISO it makes it even more so. How far can you push the ISO on the AMIRA before noise becomes too prominent? I do shoot a fair bit of docu-style / existing light so that is a concern.
 
you can always use XQD media with SXS adapters as an option. you just need to look into max datarates and ensure the cards will support it etc.

I haven't worked with the amira but quite sure it's 800 ISO type of sensor, incremental noise as you push up. 2500 ISO clean on Venice would be really nice for low light work.. you'd have to stop down a lot or use ND filters in some cases as well I'm sure !!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top