Eric Coughlin
Veteran
You think the Master Primes have better optical performance than the Leica Summilux-C lenses?
ARRI Launches ALEXA Mini LF
- Thread starter Teddy_Dem
- Start date
Grug
Veteran
With a S35mm Alexa with Master Primes at T/1.3 vs. FF Alexa LF with Signature Primes at T/1.8, you have basically identical DoF. At the same ISO the larger format has close to a 1-stop advantage in noise performance, but if you use the Master Primes' 1-stop advantage to compensate for that (and rate it at 400 ISO instead of 800 ISO) you now have VERY close noise performance between the two, at matching DoF.
Which means that the primary difference you're going to see between the two is simply resolution.
Piszkos Fred
Active member
I thought the LF and the 65 have less noise at higher ASA. I don't think Deakins ever went to 1600 ASA on the classic Alexas. https://www.rogerdeakins.com/camera/your-thoughts-on-the-mini-lf-re-noise-etc/
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
If the photosites are the same size as they're simply stitching together sensors to get a larger sensor, then why would the noise performance be better? Was there some kind of software upgrade to reduce noise?
I love that last part about resolution, "whatever tha[t] means!"Roger Deakins said:
G
Guest
Guest
Finer noise
Grug
Veteran
Same sensor, so the noise is identical (at a per-pixel level).
What differs is the format size. Because of the larger format, when projected on a matching screen (at the same ISO), noise from the LF will be 1.5x smaller than the S35mm Alexa, and noise from the 65 will be 2.25x smaller than the S35mm Alexa.
That's were you gain the improvements, the RELATIVE size of the noise from the larger formats.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Ah, that's interesting. So what would you prefer on a well budgeted production, a Super35 Mini or Mini LF?
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'm still waiting to hear if Arri will do an EF mount for the Alexa Mini LF. I read that the EF mount for the original Mini and Amira fits on the LF, but it vignettes when shooting full format. So, I suppose that would work when shooting Super35 on the LF, which I believe it does at 3.2K (can anyone confirm?). But if say you have EF mount Canon CN-e primes and want to shoot full format, then you'd be out of luck.
Grug
Veteran
Mini LF, no question.
The image quality is better in every way. Ergonomically they've fixed almost every issue I have with the original Mini. The EVF/Monitor is WAY better on the Mini LF. And the new Codex cards and "HDE" workflow is a big improvement too.
Another big benefit is being able to use full-frame zooms. An f/2.8 full-frame zoom is going to give you the same subject isolation/DoF as an Ultraprime or S4 wide-open, but with all of the speed advantages of a zoom.
Grug
Veteran
I've shot with Masters before, but not the Leicas - from the comparison tests I've seen though, there's very little in it. The Leica's seem to do better with CA, but the Masters barely have any anyway.
Get Duclos to pop a PL-mount on your CN-Es and you're off to the races!
SJX
Veteran
Ok. But the head is not gimbal head is it? I never saw such big gimbal head at least. If not gimbal head then I guess the 2 guys holding stabilize it. Probably less shaky than just one guy walking and holding camera. Anybody know?
SJX
Veteran
Yes but like said, you need more light unless you want to live with ultra shallow focus. So I'm not sure I want FF.
Grug
Veteran
There's a one-stop difference in noise performance and a one-stop difference in DoF.
Just bump your ISO up one-stop on your full-frame camera, and stop your lens down one-stop to match DoF - and you're basically in an identical situation to S35mm (in terms of noise and DoF), but you have the superior resolution of the larger format.
There's really no downside to the larger format, just more options.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
What full frame cinema zooms? The only ones I'm aware of are the Angenieux EZ lenses with the full-frame conversion adapter. Aside from that, still lenses, but those aren't ideal for most high end cinema shooting.
SJX
Veteran
Ok. But higher resolution is only in case of alexa vs alexa FF. And I like shooting native ISO. Computer boost is not same IMO.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Let's also consider there are many situations such as shooting outside where you have plenty of light, so you then gain the finer noise image without having to raise your ISO.
Is native ISO really a thing? I feel like it's just a term people throw around, when in reality the image is typically cleanest at the lowest ISO, and you have the dynamic range shifting from the highlights to the shadows the lower you go on ISO, for better or for worse depending on what you're shooting.
I often run into people who insist on shooting at native ISO but I much prefer to shoot at whatever I find looks best, which often is not the supposed native ISO.
Is native ISO really a thing? I feel like it's just a term people throw around, when in reality the image is typically cleanest at the lowest ISO, and you have the dynamic range shifting from the highlights to the shadows the lower you go on ISO, for better or for worse depending on what you're shooting.
I often run into people who insist on shooting at native ISO but I much prefer to shoot at whatever I find looks best, which often is not the supposed native ISO.
Alexa is the only camera I know that you can basically shoot 2-3 stops over or under, correct back to normal and the results are virtually indistinguishable. Don’t know how they accomplish that but it is astonishing. Perhaps it’s the HDR thing. So in a sense there really isn’t a native iso, they have managed to amplify the electronic signal in a way that keeps the noise levels minimal until it crosses the threshold and is suddenly very apparent. I definitely wouldn’t worry about boosting the image by a stop.
SJX
Veteran
Sure. But FF is now catching everywhere. Alexa OK. But I question advantage of FF in general. If you must boost ISO or shoot very shallow focus. Like blackmagic is normally bad in high ISO. But they also sell now FF camera I think. Other brands too.
High1ander
Well-known member
Depends on the system, but I guess mostly it has to do with how the dynamic range is distributed. I.e. you don't want typically 3 stops under protected and 11 stops over, but to have it closer to 7 up and 7 down. But as you say, depends on the scenes. I do think though that most people don't know about how the ISO shifts the dynamic range, and therefor just goes with whatever is recommended.
Blackmagic doesn't have anywhere near the flexibility of the Alexa. Changes in iso/exposure very quickly affect it's output and it can be quite hard at times to match a correctly exposed image from the same camera with one that is for instance, two stops under. If you nail exposure through good craft practices and a decent production budget the image is fine of course, but if you don't, the risk of artifacts increases greatly as you move away from proper exposure. The Alexa is far more stable through it's exposure range. Virtually no color shift for instance. FF is a side issue. It allows for less noise by having a larger surface area, thus expanding dynamic range, but frankly that old debate between S35 and FF feels very 5-10 years ago. People have developed strategies and new skill sets since then that are commonly put into practice.
Last edited: