G
Guest
Guest
That guy is low key selling his LUT for Bmpcc. So, i’d take that comparison with a grain of salt.
That guy is low key selling his LUT for Bmpcc. So, i’d take that comparison with a grain of salt.
G
Guest
Guest
@PaulF, we’re talking about cars to better understand cars again.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Low-key selling LUTs was very 2015...everyone’s got one now and it’s pretty much expected if you’re a video influencer. And merch.
NorBro
Major Contributor
It's more of a surprise for those who don't own an ARRI since many people think what you see on the big screen is how the camera quality actually is straight from the camera.
Then they see some of these basic real world tests and start thinking..."I guess color grading and everything else really is needed to create a blockbuster movie."
G
Guest
Guest
Although, Alexa Classics are going for $5K.
G
Guest
Guest
Ok, then he is high key selling his LUT.
G
Guest
Guest
For all the BM fan biz: yes, your camera is almost as good as an Alexa.
I hope soonish, that all cameras are better than an Alexa. I am not a huge fan of the Alexa. I hope the new s35 4K Arri camera is better than the Alexa.
I hope camera conversations can be more about ergonomics and nuances than just about the sensor's dynamic range and price. It's like We've all got a bunch of calculators and showing off which one can do math faster. At some point it doesn't matter as much as what the cameras are designed for and who they're designed to be use by.
Black magic has continued to do a good job of making cameras that are not just affordable, but hit hard in the areas that matter to video hi-fi enthusiasts and video professionals. And they aren't just sitting around letting more expensive cameras rest easy. bravo.
cars
I hope soonish, that all cameras are better than an Alexa. I am not a huge fan of the Alexa. I hope the new s35 4K Arri camera is better than the Alexa.
I hope camera conversations can be more about ergonomics and nuances than just about the sensor's dynamic range and price. It's like We've all got a bunch of calculators and showing off which one can do math faster. At some point it doesn't matter as much as what the cameras are designed for and who they're designed to be use by.
Black magic has continued to do a good job of making cameras that are not just affordable, but hit hard in the areas that matter to video hi-fi enthusiasts and video professionals. And they aren't just sitting around letting more expensive cameras rest easy. bravo.
cars
Last edited:
Hey, $56K is the going price for a Supra.
Wrong thread?
All right, let me tie it together. Business practices have precedents. Most car manufacturers don't leave gaps in their product roster but they do chose what segment of the market they serve better. BMW, Porsche and Daimler don't make inexpensive entry-tier cars (at least, not for the North American market). ARRI is the same type manufacturer. They don't make anything in the Canon range (and Canon doesn't really make anything in the ARRI range). However, they may offer a lower price model if the technology allows it and the model/s won't cannibalize their high end sales.
There is some precedent with the German cars such as Porsche 912/924/Boxster that sell for double the price of an average car rather than of a quadruple that's 911. In ARRI's projected lineup, that would mean something in the $25,000-$35,000 range. Naturally, you'd reply, "But they do make Amira in that range". And they do, except it is slightly higher than $35,000 and is rarely used in narrative film making.
So, the next question is this - will there be a cinema worthy s35 4K-4.5K model offered in that $25,000-$35,000 range.
There might be.
I was lost in this thread, but thanks to Mitch's post and those that followed, it all started to make sense.
But seriously, it may be a long while before Arri disappears for exactly the reason Mitch described.
G
Guest
Guest
Yeah, i’m trying to think of a camera that would redefine cinema, and so far, none have. Although, this next Arri might be the last traditional CMOS sensor cinema camera from them. May be better tech down the line. Would be difficult to image another 10years of Arri dominance. But i thought in the first place.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The thing is that the shots on both sides are revolting.. in fact a great chance to really test a camera
Say the sequence that starts 3.31. Lets kill the tungsten in the grade and pull a secondary t0 lift her face so it is not 2 stops under.
At this point we might start to see some major differences in the how the file holds.
THe maker of this video clearly does not have the competence to post.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I'm friends with the owner of the Alexa Mini who shot that comparison video. I can pass on your kind words.
The YouTuber who owns the Pocket 6K posted it to their YouTube account and he shot it with the Alexa Mini owner. I can say that the Alexa Mini owner friend is probably as much of an Arri snob as myself; he owns a Pocket 4K or 6K camera as well. I've used the Pocket 4K on a couple shoots with my Amira and our editor/colorist did not match them up in the final product and I also found the Pocket Camera a pain to use in general; totally worth the extra $50k for the Amira!
At 5:10 in the video he did have her face lit so it's not two stops under. They weren't trying to create fine art; they were showing how the cameras responded with proper exposure and under exposure, different colors, in daylight, etc., which it is better to have variety in a test video than just one perfectly lit image.
I personally think the best way to test a camera is to use it in the field (such as making a short film), and then in a comparison, document notes on the ease of use, workflow, image quality, etc. A $1K camera that has an equal image to an Alexa after $100k of post work is not preferable to spending $50k on an Alexa. That's why these tests are rather limiting because they just show you image quality after color grading, and don't go over workflow, ease of use, feature-set, etc. In the case of the Alexa owner who shot the video, he can't use his Atlas anamorphics on a Pocket 6K, for example. So how is the Pocket 6K image quality with Atlas anamorphics? Non-existent.
And even if they do get them to match up without spending $100k or a ton of post time, they could just be better colorists than the average person who would buy a Pocket 6K camera, which doesn't help the argument for the Pocket 6K. Sure, you could say, "You don't need to be an expert colorist; just buy this LUT." But, heck, a lot of Pocket 6K users don't know how to handle LUTs, or haven't found the perfect LUT, etc. Meanwhile, back in Arri town, much less room for error. You don't need to spend any effort to make an Arri look like an Arri. Nine times out of 10 the people who color my footage are idiot colorists, myself included.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
The Pocket comes with built-in LUTs. You can actually even 'burn' one into the footage so the pictures are ready out of the box.
The "extended" one is a nice natural balance between DR and contrast/saturation. With the 'burn' feature, it becomes even easier than an ARRI (with the sacrifice of post-production but if you're burning one in then you know why and what you're doing). You can of course use your own LUTs too.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Eric - indeed câmera tests are not usually fine art - but the final step of a test is to try and salvage the footage In post by doing things like pulling up underexposed faces not leaving them under
As the files are swung typically the file on the poorer camera breaks
As the files are swung typically the file on the poorer camera breaks
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
How is that easier than Arri? Arri gives you the choice of either having the LUT as metadata which gets automatically recognized by Premiere so you don't have to find or apply it and you can then turn it off if desired, or of burning it in to the file so you can't turn it off in post.
You're saying the Pocket can burn in the LUT which Arri can also do. Can the pocket also have a LUT done as metadata such that it's automatically applied in Premiere but can also be turned off?
Well, I guess that comes down to editing then, and you're just saying the editor didn't take the extra step of showing how well the footage can be pushed. If the original files were made available like John Brawley made his available in his camera test topic, then anyone could see how well the footage could be pushed in post. In any case, that's more work and most tests aren't going to have everything you want.
Being that I don't edit often, I sometimes consider the emphasis on things like shooting RAW or Log for most post flexibility as well as higher resolution for post-reframing to become a crutch for DPs who can't shoot well. I'm in the camp of trying to get it best in-camera. Sure, anyone can still make mistakes. But it annoys the heck out of me when a producer says to "frame wider" so that they can then adjust the framing in post. Perhaps in a world were adjusting in post resulted in inconsequential image quality loss, and the camera had proper frame lines as metadata setup so that the desired framing was shown in post while also recording outside of the edges of that frame for post adjustment, then I wouldn't mind it so much.
Last edited:
NorBro
Major Contributor
I don't know what Premiere does - but yes, in Resolve.
Yes, in FCP X with FCP X having built-in Blackmagic LUTs (although it's not automatic).
Easier in the sense that you can actually record with the LUT "burned" into the footage so no post work is necessary. If the ARRI does that too then it's equal (in the sense of any extra steps).
Can the ARRI do that? (Just wondering.)
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
If it's not automatic how will an idiot get good results since they can't figure out how to find and apply the LUT in post?
Yes, the Arri can burn in the footage too. Since the Arri can automatically apply the metadata of the LUT, I've never actually felt the need to burn in the LUT nor have I ever had a client request me to do so. On the other hand, I try to burn in LUTs (or picture profiles, as they're called) all the time with the C300 Mark II, and only shoot Log when a client specifically requests it, in part because the C300 Mark II doesn't get automatically LUTed in Premiere, as well as Canon's LUTs being crap.