Cine Alta?

R

Rhomboid

New member
Is the FS100 a Cine Alta branded camera? I don't think it is but then, does anyone know what criteria Sony uses to determine whether a camera such as the EXs get C-A branding versus a camera that doesn't?

I guess what I am truly interested in is the actual criteria used by Sony to use this particular branding. :thumbsup:
 
It is not part of the Cine Alta line. It is part of the NEX line. I don't know what criteria Sony uses to make those decisions. I do like that it at least has the sensor from a Cine Alta line camera.
 
My understanding is that the Cinealta line is built in a different factory among other differences. I imagine Cinealta has a particular pre-disposition to offer cameras with a particular set of industry standard features that may not always be that important for non-broadcast applications. I somewhat doubt that they would make a Cinealta camera that used AVCHD or that didn't have the extensive picture profile system or HD-SDI as the XDCAM EX and above cameras have. Then again the NEX and consumer lines may be better suited for building a different kind of camera with the latest features without worrying about adoption from pro/broadcast users who often are more concerned with things fitting into the expensive workflow/hardware they've already invested in than adopting the latest technologies.

It seems to me the <$25k camera market has simplified immensely with Sony's new line.

FS100<F3<REDMX<=EPICM<=ALEXA
$5k<$13k<$25k<$50k<$100k (very roughly)

From what I have seen, there is now no reason to shoot on any other camera besides these if image quality is of the greatest importance, and it is easy to choose one based on your budget since each more expensive camera is twice the cost of the previous. I really do not care about the cinealta name, it didnt hurt that my EX1 had it, but comparing my EX1 and FS100 I do not miss it at all. I prefer the capabilities of the FS100 and I'm sure a lot of them would never have happened in a cinealta camera.
 
When I was in film school... the "cine alta" line was F900's and F900r's... (later F950's and etc). Those were bad-boy cinema cameras... the ones George Lucas shot the new StarWars on. Back then we were living in an age before Red, before Alexa, before D-21's, just about the time the HVX200 was being introduced. When I would shoot with F900's, I used to call those cameras 'cine altas' as if it was their model name. But later when the EX series got called cine-alta, that is when the name lost its' prestige in my opinion. The EX-3's are darn decent little cameras, but I always associated the cine-alta line with top cinema gear, and the EX-3 was just an HVX200 with a bit shallower DoF, to me anyway. It wasn't the cinema camera 'cine alta' was supposed to be in my mind.

I think the F3 is a terrific camera and could wear that badge proudly. It is 10x better than an F900 in my opinion (I hated the f900r anyhow, too much red tint in the shadow detail, big and bad menu system) but other than that, I felt the cine-alta line was diminished with the inclusion of the EX series cameras. Maybe I missed the point of what a Cine Alta camera is. I always thought it was a badge, much similar to the SS badge on cars. Maybe I am wrong.

I'd be very interested in knowing the criteria for what makes a CA camera.

According to Wiki, it's just a Sony camera designed for cinema, among more complicated things, 24p production. Looking at the list (F900, F900R, F950, F23, F35, F3) all those cameras make sense. But again, the (EX-1, EX-3) make the list, and that's silly in my opinion. No doubt they can make wonderful images, but I don't see the CineAlta badge applying. Especially in comparison to F23, F35 and F3.
 
Last edited:
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
the EX-3 was just an HVX200 with a bit shallower DoF, to me anyway. It wasn't the cinema camera 'cine alta' was supposed to be in my mind.
Click to expand...

Why would a camera with 3x 1/2" 2MP imagers, cinegamma modes straight from an F900, and HD-SDI be just an HVX200 (3x 1/3" 0.5MP imagers, clippy noisy cinegammas, and no HD-SDI) with slightly bigger chips rather than an F900 with slightly smaller chips? I'm always amazed how oversold the HVX was and how long the EX1 took to overtake it.
 
^ Yeah, that is totally my personal opinion.

I totally get where you are coming from, as on paper the EX-3 is the better camera... and definately is compared to the original HVX200.

The HVX200 was released in late 2005, just short of three years prior to the EX-3, to my knowledge...

I suppose, despite the EX3 being a better camera, by the time it had come out, I had learned to make my HVX200 look amazing and how to fine tune the panny products. Also, the only real motivation to jump ship at the point of the EX-3 was the shallower DoF. Remember, by the time the EX-3 was out, the HVX200a had been released and the HPX170 was landing about this time.

In 2008, when the EX-3 was available, I purchased the HPX170 and used my older HVX200 as a B-camera. The HPX170 was rated at 500asa, much cleaner signal than HVX200 (I believe it had the same noise as the original HVX200 clean at +6db gain or higher), had more refinable scene file settings, and *did* have HD-SDI output, did have waveform, etc.

This was just for my documentary work, btw. I had already partnered with a friend from film school and we were already hustling our own RedOne at the time or shortly thereafter.

So Sony's loss for audience was initially due to timeline. The HVX dominated the scene because it had been available for nearly three years prior. It had also gone through a retooling twice, with the HVX200a and HPX170...

In my opinion, I liked the HPX-170 more. I never got into the Ex-3 because for docu-purposes, my HPX-170 did the job well and I was never going shoot the EX-3 for cinema purposes. My familiarity for the Panasonic trio was one that helped me in the field. I would work those cameras blindfolded.


So yes, it was a personal thing, and the EX-3 is probably the better camera... but was it that much better to throw away a great tool I was intuitively familiar with? Nope.


Back to the original topic....


The CineAlta line was always about cinematic professional tools. The EX-3, in my opinion, is a professional tool, but never was 'cinema enough'... more like a beefed up docu-cam. Regarding the FS100, I've been a 1st AC on a show that has been using it for about three-four weeks now, and having all that experience with it, I can say that the image is pretty fantastic for what the camera is... but it is an awkward and strange little camera. The layout of buttons, the recording format, and many other reasons make it seem nothing like a traditional camera. It lacks the intelligent tried and true design of a production camera. I wouldn't give it the CA badge, but then again, I'd revoke it from EX-series too.
 
Last edited:
Don´t forget the special "Mojo" the DVX and HVX had. Sony was never able, to achieve something even close to that - no matter how better it looked on paper.

Frank
 
In 1973 Chevrolet put a "GT" badge on this:


Vega GT.jpg


I do not think that the FS100 is the "Chevy Vega" of video cameras, but I would not be that concerned by what branding badge a company puts on some of their products.
 
nyvz said:
Why would a camera with 3x 1/2" 2MP imagers, cinegamma modes straight from an F900, and HD-SDI be just an HVX200 (3x 1/3" 0.5MP imagers, clippy noisy cinegammas, and no HD-SDI) with slightly bigger chips rather than an F900 with slightly smaller chips? I'm always amazed how oversold the HVX was and how long the EX1 took to overtake it.
Click to expand...

Especially on THIS SITE:huh:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top