Can you pick the camera and lens ? Venice / DXL2 / Alexa 65 and lenses

[Run&Gun]

Last night I was planning on watching Atomic Blonde, but for some reason I couldn't get it to load up after logging in. Oh well. But I saw that Downton Abbey (the movie) was available on HBO, so that became my movie to watch. I was curious how it would look and feel in comparison to the series, which I always thought was well shot, since this was a major theatrical release. Were they going to stay in the spirit of the original or were they going to "go Hollywood"? There were some "bigger shots" and it was 2.39:1 and large sensor, but nothing felt really out of place. After a few minutes in, I started saying to myself that this didn't look quite like Arri, which the original TV series was(the first season I think was the D21, then Alexa). Don't get me wrong, there was nothing "wrong" with the image and it looked great, but it was a little more punchy and contrasty than the TV series and seemed just a tick sharper. Glossier, if you will. So after about 3/4 of the movie, I decided to look up what it was shot on. Sony Venice.

 

[Guest]

Last night I was planning on watching Atomic Blonde, but for some reason I couldn't get it to load up after logging in. Oh well. But I saw that Downton Abbey (the movie) was available on HBO, so that became my movie to watch. I was curious how it would look and feel in comparison to the series, which I always thought was well shot, since this was a major theatrical release. Were they going to stay in the spirit of the original or were they going to "go Hollywood"? There were some "bigger shots" and it was 2.39:1 and large sensor, but nothing felt really out of place. After a few minutes in, I started saying to myself that this didn't look quite like Arri, which the original TV series was(the first season I think was the D21, then Alexa). Don't get me wrong, there was nothing "wrong" with the image and it looked great, but it was a little more punchy and contrasty than the TV series and seemed just a tick sharper. Glossier, if you will. So after about 3/4 of the movie, I decided to look up what it was shot on. Sony Venice.

Agreed, even in like 15seconds of viewing on my phone, I could see that the flame on the candle in JB's test looked best with camera B. The flame retained a detail and a character that felt right. Camera C was so close, but felt a little flat, like letting go of your breath before coming out of the water at the last second. Basically, it reads as a digital flame.

I think most digital cameras are good, but few have that little bit of top end. That last little bit of ability to capture nuance.


And while i am sure it could be graded out, C had a sort of tea-dyed look to it. In particular in the dress. A and B had a vibrant blue/teal, were as camera C was tinted with a brownish hue, pushing it a little further closer to the green spectrum than the other two. Eric Coughlin calls it “Venice Brown”. Perhaps this tinted look is similar to the varnish on Rembrandt’s paintings, so, it may actually fit many people’s ideals for a period piece? In general, i prefer the dress colouring from B and A.

 

[AndreeOnline]

The flame retained a detail and a character that felt right. Camera C was so close, but felt a little flat

It's interesting reading what you all see in the images. No need to agree here... all just observations based on personal perception and preference. But, then... for the sake of argument, let say...

I don't see the difference in flame fidelity that you talk about James. Both B (Alexa) and C (Venice) look good to me. They have both retained the authentic warmth of the flame with a natural looking sub surface scattering in the wax, reassuring us that the light is rendered correctly:

The DXL is struggling in this grade with a funky saturated flame and especially the wax.:

But there is something in the IPP2 workflow that cleans up the gamut issues.

A and B had a vibrant blue/teal, were as camera C was tinted with a brownish hue…

Yes. To me, camera C (Venice) has a hint of Silver/Bleech that ends up giving it a bit of an 'earthy' feel. But I kind of like it. I can't decide if it's the subject matter or not. It might be. In any case it registers as very harmonious with me.

Interestingly, as Grug shows in his alternative process in post #13, putting the DXL through IPP2 and the Light Iron LUT makes it end up in a very similar place.

 

[Guest]

thanks Andree, of course, no need to agree, and i always appreciate you observations!

 

[NorBro]

Isn't it possible that the burning of the flame may be different in each frame since they aren't captured at the exact time/second in life?

And could the lens used and even DOF alter perception?

Might as well throw in some variables if camera performance evaluation has now come down to examining candle light flames.

(Besides testing for the purpose of having a production in candlelight.)

 

[AndreeOnline]

Isn't it possible that the burning of the flame may be different in each frame since they aren't captured at the exact time/second in life?

Come now, don't be ridiculous! A candela is the base unit of luminous intensity because it always burns exactly the same.

Sheesh. ;D

 

[John Brawley]

Isn't it possible that the burning of the flame may be different in each frame since they aren't captured at the exact time/second in life?

And could the lens used and even DOF alter perception?

Might as well throw in some variables if camera performance evaluation has now come down to examining candle light flames.

(Besides testing for the purpose of having a production in candlelight.)

You can download the camera originals here. (but it's 80Gb)

https://johnbrawley.wordpress.com/2020/04/14/dxl2-venice-alexa-65-files/

I did try and use the same T stops across the board (yes I used ND's on some shots)

We're focussed on the one frame here, but the flame is pretty consistent throughout all the clips. I tested a lot of candles as well, single, double triple and quad wicks, with different colour (that's the test that also works for insomnia) And while it might flicker, having now shot a season of a show that ordered and used more than 100 000 candles over 6 months I've got a pretty good idea of how consistent flames can be

This was from memory our stock standard single wick (least light) candle.

I was also talking about and more interested in the candle in the "dark" moments, before the light comes up.

JB

EDIT

Should also add, it is the same, I've seen the rest of the tests

I did the same shot three times for each lens family using different focal lengths (not shown here) Each camera mostly got to use the same lenses as much as I could between the mounts and crops available.

 

[Guest]

I was also talking about and more interested in the candle in the "dark" moments, before the light comes up.

this^

 

[Run&Gun]

Agreed, even in like 15seconds of viewing on my phone, I could see that the flame on the candle in JB's test looked best with camera B. The flame retained a detail and a character that felt right. Camera C was so close, but felt a little flat, like letting go of your breath before coming out of the water at the last second. Basically, it reads as a digital flame.

I think most digital cameras are good, but few have that little bit of top end. That last little bit of ability to capture nuance.


And while i am sure it could be graded out, C had a sort of tea-dyed look to it. In particular in the dress. A and B had a vibrant blue/teal, were as camera C was tinted with a brownish hue, pushing it a little further closer to the green spectrum than the other two. Eric Coughlin calls it “Venice Brown”. Perhaps this tinted look is similar to the varnish on Rembrandt’s paintings, so, it may actually fit many people’s ideals for a period piece? In general, i prefer the dress colouring from B and A.

Hey James, I tried to respond to your PM, but it says your inbox/account is full.

 

[Guest]

Hey James, I tried to respond to your PM, but it says your inbox/account is full.

Just saw the email.

 

[Grug]

Agreed, even in like 15seconds of viewing on my phone, I could see that the flame on the candle in JB's test looked best with camera B. The flame retained a detail and a character that felt right. Camera C was so close, but felt a little flat, like letting go of your breath before coming out of the water at the last second. Basically, it reads as a digital flame.

Interesting, I can't say I see that myself. Pulling all three down to 160 ISO in Davinci the detail retained in the flames seems indistinguishable to me (across the three of them) they all appear to be clipping out at essentially the same point:

In the colour chart/white clipping shot, I actually thought the Venice seemed to be clipping out perceptibly more gracefully than the Alexa65 did (which was probably what had me assuming that Camera C was the Arri). That took me by surprise a little (as although the Venice has certainly seems to be the closest contender to Arri's throne, it hasn't seemed to me to have quite reached it in those last little bits of highlight handling), to be fair though, it's a single test, and a flat white card, so difficult to judge that last percentage or two accurately (a textured card might provide a little more insight).

And while i am sure it could be graded out, C had a sort of tea-dyed look to it. In particular in the dress. A and B had a vibrant blue/teal, were as camera C was tinted with a brownish hue, pushing it a little further closer to the green spectrum than the other two. Eric Coughlin calls it “Venice Brown”. Perhaps this tinted look is similar to the varnish on Rembrandt’s paintings, so, it may actually fit many people’s ideals for a period piece? In general, i prefer the dress colouring from B and A.

I think my eye is starting to recognise the new "Venice Brown" tinge better (the FX9 has it too). And I have to say, I really like it. The colours seem a little more homogenous with Sony's new colour science, a little more cohesive, and I've always preferred that slightly more constrained colour palette, it feels more "designed" (which is something I've always spent a lot of time in colour grading trying to achieve - the new Sonys seem to give it to you by default).

Which lenses did you ultimately opt for with the series JB? For me the clear standout in this group seems to be the Primo 70s, they just seem to be everything I want in a spherical lens.

 

[Guest]

Which lenses did you ultimately opt for with the series JB? For me the clear standout in this group seems to be the Primo 70s, they just seem to be everything I want in a spherical lens.

+1

If I had Hulu, I'd try to guess. Anyone watching that might want to guess?

 

[Guest]

Interesting, I can't say I see that myself. Pulling all three down to 160 ISO in Davinci the detail retained in the flames seems indistinguishable to me (across the three of them) they all appear to be clipping out at essentially the same point:

You really think they all look the same?

In the colour chart/white clipping shot, I actually thought the Venice seemed to be clipping out perceptibly more gracefully than the Alexa65 did (which was probably what had me assuming that Camera C was the Arri). That took me by surprise a little (as although the Venice has certainly seems to be the closest contender to Arri's throne, it hasn't seemed to me to have quite reached it in those last little bits of highlight handling), to be fair though, it's a single test, and a flat white card, so difficult to judge that last percentage or two accurately (a textured card might provide a little more insight).

That two shot with the big white card? How did they look in the original files? I recall the contrast looking a little weird in the Arri one. I had a screen shot compilation on my phone, but think it is buried amongst a thousand photos now. I'll look for it.

Also, I really like the Venice too. I just like the AlevIII cameras better. I like a slightly more honest start. Though, totally agree with you, on being able to use the look of the Venice. from what I have seen of your work, those colours would fit in really well with your style. And by the way, you have been killing it with the camera work the last few years. looks awesome!

Ah, found it.
Top C and bottom is A

I just figured there was something amiss with the Arri shot, so i disregarded the white card altogether.
Perhaps the original file look different. I’m still setting up a little micro home post suite, so i haven’t dug into the originals. I should probably download them in case they become unavailable. Will be a while before i ever get to test these lenses all in one place! That’s for sure!

 

[Grug]

You really think they all look the same?

In terms of the clipping point, yes.

The colour seems to bleed out on all three at essentially the same point. The DXL2 image (the middle one) certainly doesn't have as much red in the outer edges of the flame as the other two. But it's hard to be sure from the files I have here if that's just the Lightiron LUT cutting down on that particular hue or the lens used not adding some additional magenta CA to the high-contrast edge. The Lightiron LUT does seem to take the image in a similar direction to the "Venice Brown" look, but it seems to go a touch further with it, making skintones a bit earthier all-round.

That two shot with the big white card? How did they look in the original files? I recall the contrast looking a little weird in the Arri one. I had a screen shot compilation on my phone, but think it is buried amongst a thousand photos now. I'll look for it.

Also, I really like the Venice too. I just like the AlevIII cameras better. I like a slightly more honest start. Though, totally agree with you, on being able to use the look of the Venice. from what I have seen of your work, those colours would fit in really well with your style. And by the way, you have been killing it with the camera work the last few years. looks awesome!

Ah, found it.
Top A and bottom is C

Perhaps the original file look different. I’m still setting up a little micro home post suite, so i haven’t dug into the originals. I should probably download them in case they become unavailable. Will be a while before i ever get to test these lenses all in one place! That’s for sure!

Those three shots aren't included in the camera original files that JB's shared unfortunately. I agree something funky is happening with the Alexa in that particular frame, it's possible the skew to the cooler colour temp is throwing things out a bit. I'd be very surprised if the Arri doesn't still hold a slight edge in those highest of highlights. However it's pretty clear to me now that the Venice is only a bee's dick away from matching it now.

Honestly, looking at the camera original files here on my 10-bit grading monitor (with the DXL2 processed through IPP2) - all three look exquisite. It's MUCH harder to pick them apart in full-quality than it is in the post-Vimeo compression versions. The same goes for the lenses - some of the fringing that was really irking me in the Vimeo video, becomes far less objectionable when you see it uncompressed - evidently h264 does some additional damage to high contrast edges.

Frankly, I think I'd be delighted with any of the combinations if I had to "make do" with them. Though that shouldn't really be surprising - these are the three highest-performing digital cameras that have ever existed, and some of the most gorgeous glass too.

JB, consider me jealous! (the show looks GREAT by the way, I think it might well be your prettiest one yet)

Those Primo 70s though... :love4:

 

[Guest]

In terms of the clipping point, yes.

Well, then of course we have no disagreement there.

Edit: Although, in that comp'd image, I may have mixed up A and C, but the middle one was definitely Arri. C at top and A at the bottom.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

As an owner/operator I personally hate the Panavision Primo lenses, Panavision DLX2, and Alexa 65. These items are some of the worst gear for owner/operators.

And after all that testing you decided to go with the Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K.

Pretty much. But the P6K.

Nothing about this test makes me even a wee bit sad or longing for more in terms of pure image quality. I'm not comparing the P6K to these cameras, but I do find that the delta you get in IQ does not warrant getting in debt in tens of thousands of $$. Upcoming filmmakers today are pretty lucky when it comes to options for < $5K.

I was referring to the IMDB tech specs for "The Great" which list the cameras used...

ARRI ALEXA SXT
Blackmagic Design Ursa Mini Pro G2
Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2235759/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

I'm curious as to the reasons behind using the two Blackmagic cameras if that listing is correct. Also, the reasoning with testing large format cameras and then going with a Super35 camera.

 

[John Brawley]

I was referring to the IMDB tech specs for "The Great" which list the cameras used...

ARRI ALEXA SXT
Blackmagic Design Ursa Mini Pro G2
Blackmagic Pocket Camera 4K

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2235759/technical?ref_=tt_dt_spec

I'm curious as to the reasons behind using the two Blackmagic cameras if that listing is correct. Also, the reasoning with testing large format cameras and then going with a Super35 camera.

It’s a conversation I can’t share here but indeed we went SXT in the end. Not my choice.

I also used the G2 a lot but not the P4K (maybe on a drone somewhere ? We had multiple units in multiple countries)

JB

 

[Eric Coughlin]

What lenses did you end up going with?

I was looking at the Cooke S7s recently and at first glance compared to the S4s, they're around 3 lbs heavier, so a drawback, but on second glance, seeing they're still the same T/2, and T/2 on full frame is like T/1.4 on Super35, so that actually makes the S7s rather interesting compared to the S4s.

Compare this to say the Arri Master Primes at T/1.3 vs their full frame counterpart, the Signature Primes at T/1.8, where the Signatures are then slower lenses, though rather equivalent after accounting for full frame vs. Super35. That's not to say the S7 really has an advantage over the Signature Primes as the Signatures are still faster and horses for courses; just that the S7's do have an advantage over the S4s (and the weight disadvantage).

I also wonder what physics and whatnot barriers have prevented the high end lens manufacturers from making full frame primes as fast as the full frame Canon CN-e primes.

 

[John Brawley]

What lenses did you end up going with?

Cooke S5's. At least you get speed with the weight and size.

I was looking at the Cooke S7s recently and at first glance compared to the S4s, they're around 3 lbs heavier, so a drawback, but on second glance, seeing they're still the same T/2, and T/2 on full frame is like T/1.4 on Super35, so that actually makes the S7s rather interesting compared to the S4s.

Tested the S7's when we thought we were shooting larger format. They are big lenses. Heavy. Massive. They're intimidating to an actor !

Compare this to say the Arri Master Primes at T/1.3 vs their full frame counterpart, the Signature Primes at T/1.8, where the Signatures are then slower lenses, though rather equivalent after accounting for full frame vs. Super35. That's not to say the S7 really has an advantage over the Signature Primes as the Signatures are still faster and horses for courses; just that the S7's do have an advantage over the S4s (and the weight disadvantage).

I also wonder what physics and whatnot barriers have prevented the high end lens manufacturers from making full frame primes as fast as the full frame Canon CN-e primes.

Canon's primes are all over the place though. Some are 1.3, some are 1.5. some are 3.1. That's not cinema lenses in my view. I'd argue a qualification for cinema lenses is that the maximum aperture is the same across the majority of the focal lengths. Extra props if the focus gears and iris are all in the same place in space relative to the lens mount and the front size is more or less consistent as well.

So I'd argue they don't count really as cinema lenses. Yes they make some primes that cover larger 135ish size but they're still not really a cinema lens set.

Don't forget the venerable Zeiss compact primes (i own a full set). They too also cover these new larger formats and have the same issues. Some are 1.3, some are 2.1.

Having tested a little with Supremes I was super impressed by them. They aren't Master Primes just for a bigger image circle by any stretch.

Panavision also have some interesting faster primes, oddly in their vintage library.

JB

 

[Run&Gun]

Cooke S5's. At least you get speed with the weight and size.



Tested the S7's when we thought we were shooting larger format. They are big lenses. Heavy. Massive. They're intimidating to an actor !



Canon's primes are all over the place though. Some are 1.3, some are 1.5. some are 3.1. That's not cinema lenses in my view. I'd argue a qualification for cinema lenses is that the maximum aperture is the same across the majority of the focal lengths. Extra props if the focus gears and iris are all in the same place in space relative to the lens mount and the front size is more or less consistent as well.

So I'd argue they don't count really as cinema lenses. Yes they make some primes that cover larger 135ish size but they're still not really a cinema lens set.

Don't forget the venerable Zeiss compact primes (i own a full set). They too also cover these new larger formats and have the same issues. Some are 1.3, some are 2.1.

Having tested a little with Supremes I was super impressed by them. They aren't Master Primes just for a bigger image circle by any stretch.

Panavision also have some interesting faster primes, oddly in their vintage library.

JB

Well, at least the CN-E's get bonus points for focus & aperture gearing and location and unified front diameters. ; ) The biggest dragdown with the CN-E's is the 14mm. But to be fair, you have to spend a lot of money and start to get into MP territory, before you get a wide that is in the T1.3/1.5 neighborhood to match the rest of the set.

Can you elaborate on what you mean about the Supreme's?