Is the Alexa better than the F35?

[steve phillipps]

Never really considered an F35 before but looking at the specs it seems right up there with the Alexa / Amira - just CDD instead of CMOS - am I missing something?
Steve

 

[Grug]

Alexa is significantly newer digital technology, and (in my opinion at least) the most aesthetically pleasing digital camera developed to date. The F35 is a similar camera in many ways because it's also been designed to specifically replicate film digitally - for the price, the F35 is one hell of a camera (though newer cameras leave it behind spec-wise).

 

[steve phillipps]

How do the newer cameras leave it behind spec-wise - in terms of anything that actually affects image quality that is? For instance the F35 has higher pixel count than F55, and is CCD.

Steve

 

[Grug]

Sensitivity, dynamic range, S/N ratio, frame rate capabilities, raw capture, effective white balance presets, straightforward solid-state file recording, lack of CCD vertical smear - there's a host of things.

Doesn't make the F35's images any less beautiful - but time and technology has moved on since it was king of the roost.

 

[steve phillipps]

Shooting for HD I wonder whether the F35 would give a better image than the F55? I assume yes, but as you say, technology has moved on a bit. I wonder.

Steve

 

[yachacha]

Also if you were to ignore all the tech specs, you can make $$ on an Alexa/Amira, F35 is a very hard sell.

 

[steve phillipps]

Yeah I suppose that's true.

 

[mlysbakken]

Specs aside, I'd say the main visible differences between the Alexa and the F35 are their respective native sensitivities and framerates. The Alexa is the clear winner here. Colorwise, though, the F35 is right up there, and in most cases I almost don't notice the difference in DR, due to the F35's clever mapping of highlights and shadows (as can be seen from the included comparison picture).

However, the ergonomics of the F35 are quite a lot worse than the Alexa's, and so are the menus. It was clearly not designed for owner-operators. If you can overcome those hurdles, though, the post-workflow is comparable. We DVX-rebels have configured our F35's in ways that allow us to shoot directly to SSD's in "editready" formats like prores and DNxHD, and over the course of the past year we have developed a more than capaple LUT and ACES workflow for grading.

In the end: Would I swap my F35 for an Alexa? In a heartbeat, but mostly because it's just easier to get what you want from an Alexa. The Alexa is osx, the F35 is linux

 

[steve phillipps]

Thanks for the replies. There is a reason why I wouldn't want to swap for an Alexa - and it's because I actually have the SRW9000PL and I much prefer working with tapes - I find dumping everything to drives a massive pain. And if the image quality is in at least the same ballpark then I'm more than happy!

 

[yachacha]

Steve you fox! If you have time start a 9000 pl thread with your experience with the cam. I think a lot of us are very curious about the cam. 9000pl is a much nicer form for handheld work than the f35. Its still a hard sell but if you dont need 120 fps, id say rock the 9000 pl.

 

[Grug]

If it's working for you I can't see any reason you'd need to change.

 

[JMtheDP]

Unless I had a burning need to upgrade, I would not change a 9000PL for an ALEXA. The major benefit really is the solid sate workflow built-in, as well as the higher frame rate capabilities.

In reality, there are a lot more times when I am shooting CMOS and I wish I had a global shutter rather than when I had a CCD and I wished I had more frame rates.

 

[steve phillipps]

I think the 9000 is an absolutely gorgeous bit of kit - if you only wanted solid state then an F35 would make more sense, but as I said, I really like tape, having used tape Varicam for a long time, and of course you always have the option to add recorder like Odyssey 7.
I'll post some pics and observations when I get a chance.
Thanks for all the replies.
Steve

 

[eddavid]

One really nice thing is the native sensor is 3200k and also it handles color differently than the Alexa - less cyan look and richer tungsten look.

I read in American Cinematographer the DP who shot Maleficient wanted to shoot on the F35 but in the end the Alexa squeked out his decision. Oh well.

 

[JMtheDP]

You're talking about Dean Semler - he is a long time user of the Genesis, from the very early days. His work includes Apocalypto, Click, Get Smart, Secretariat, among others.

It was probably a decision he didn't want to make, but I imagine for a film of that budget it is hard to justify last-gen tech.

 

[Noel Evans]

it handles color differently than the Alexa - less cyan look and richer tungsten look.

I read in American Cinematographer the DP who shot Maleficient wanted to shoot on the F35 but in the end the Alexa squeked out his decision. Oh well.

I'd suggest some person who lacked knowledge and had a runny nose (or multi forms of that) were jumping around shouting Alexa, Alexa.

I still think the F35 has better colourimetry than the new 4K Sony's as well but hey...

(DISCLOSURE: I don't have an F35 or any other dog in this race.)

 

[Joncarr]

If you wanna talk numbers..... Well the Alexa has 14.5 stops of DR and can do 2.8k RAW (open gate for the XT is 3.4k RAW) and the f35 has 11.3 of DR and is HD only. Film has 14.5-15 and measures 3.2k-3.7k in resolution. So I would choose ALEXA over the f35 any day, cause it's closer to what film can do in terms of DR and resolution. I know this will piss a lot of die hard f35 people off, but the f35 does not look like film anymore. Yes, it was made to look like film, with the technology of 2005 could offer. The ALEXA was also made to look like film, with the technology of 2010. A lot happens in 5 years. And yes the ALEXA, is better. Don't blame me on the DR specs, Zacuto even confirms mostly the same DR as me.

 

[Viddovation]

If you wanna talk numbers..... Well the Alexa has 14.5 stops of DR and can do 2.8k RAW (open gate for the XT is 3.4k RAW) and the f35 has 11.3 of DR and is HD only. Film has 14.5-15 and measures 3.2k-3.7k in resolution. So I would choose ALEXA over the f35 any day, cause it's closer to what film can do in terms of DR and resolution. I know this will piss a lot of die hard f35 people off, but the f35 does not look like film anymore. Yes, it was made to look like film, with the technology of 2005 could offer. The ALEXA was also made to look like film, with the technology of 2010. A lot happens in 5 years. And yes the ALEXA, is better. Don't blame me on the DR specs, Zacuto even confirms mostly the same DR as me.

I'm by no means "pissed off" and your numbers are accurate, however, your interpretation of them is a bit broad for my taste, and they come with certain caveats.

In particular I find your phrase "the F35 does not look like film anymore" to be poorly chosen.

It seems to me the F35 either looks like film or it doesn't. Personally, I suspect if you took well shot Color Kodak 35mm footage and projected it next to well shot F35 footage next to well shoot Alexa footage I doubt the layperson (non-industry) would be able to clearly delineate between them, nor consistently pick either the Alexa or film as superior to the F35.

If the same test was given to Camera Operators and DPs, I suspect there would still be a number or folks who fail to identify and either guess wrong or admit they don't know.

I'm not going to assert that the F35 is better on paper. It's not - but it's not bad either, and right now it's far more affordable than RED or Alexa.

As for the "technology of 2005" and the "technology of 2010" one should keep in mind that the F35 sensor is the pinnacle of CCD technology - a mature technology, while CMOS technology is far newer overall, and is still developing and improving.

As for dynamic range - yes, the F35 is 11.3 stops, with quite a bit hidden in the highlights.

As far as what "film" looks like, and the specs offered in terms of resolution and stops... well, that really depends on the film stock, doesn't it? So perhaps you meant "[modern Super35mm motion picture] film [stocks]." And not all material is trying to look like a modern film stock. In fact, sometimes you want to grade a film stock that isn't available anymore. And as for resolution, the F35 only outputs 1080p, but it's probably the sharpest 1080p of any camera at all, because the sensor is optimized for that resolution. There's no binning or line-skipping or resizing to speak of. So, it hardly looks worse than the Alexa or RED downsampled to 1080.

If you have the money for an Alexa it's an exceptional piece of kit. Just make sure you have the clients who will foot the bill.

 

[yachacha]

That picture again. Nothing looks quite like film. The F35 emulates the grain texture and global shutter of film, to my eye at least. I dont think dynamic range or resolution matter as much to get the "movie magic." If those were my main motivations id get a red epic or dragon, like you. To each there own. If i had a chance to pick a format to shoot a feature, no money considerations my choice would be:

1. 70mm
2. 35mm techniscope
3. Sony F35
4. Super 16mm

i work with red and alexa enough to know what they can do. Great images but not cinematic. CMOS was a cost saving alternative that hit all the specs on paper but lost something important. The hobbit looks like a joke compared to LOTR. I dont want to start a flame war either but i think many try to quantify film next to digital and miss out on why the f35 tried to be special in a way no digital camera has tried since.

 

[SJX]

We already had many vs threads and posts here. End result is F35 kicks butt. Like Viddo say maybe not on paper but in reality.

If you search you find many great reports here comparing F35 with Alexa and others. Here are somethings some of the greats here who have used F35 and the others said:

To me, the F35 delivers the best film look of all current cameras. Yep, above Alexa and F65. And I´m not saying it's the best. I´m just saying it produces the best looking footage. The alexa might have more DR, the F65 might produce cleaner footage but to me they don't look as good as the Genesis/F35.

Colorimetry on F3 and C300 are not in the same ballpark as Red, and not even worth comparing it with the F35.

In terms of resolution, all those cameras officially shoot at 1080p.
Right. Until the moment you put them together and discover how the F35
footage shows more detail than the others while using 0 sharpening. I
remember this characteristic when comparing the F35 vs the Red one a few
years ago. No matter how we scaled down the 4K footage from the Red
down to 1080p, the F35 always seemed to show more detail while still
give very natural (non-sharpened) images.

Lets say this again: the F35 was built in an era where the king was 35mm
film and this camera was developed to mimic film as close as possible.
These days it's more about clean high ISOS, saturated colors etc. It's
not good or bad, it's just different.

How does the F35 hold up in a 4K world?

Depends who's asking.

If they are a techy, I would ask how one can consider the F35 inferior on
grounds of resolution when its pixel count is higher than that of Sony's
own F5, F55 and the original RED ONE.

For people that care about the image, the F35 is in my mind the single best
digital camera for genuinely emulating a "film look". No, it is not
technically the best camera out there anymore, but film wasn't perfect.

For the producers, think of the camera like an EPIC with redcine built in.
The F65's raw is 40mb a frame. I don't think the productions I work on
could handle that. They have a hard enough time with cineform at 3gb a
minute.

For everyone else, if you cannot create gorgeous images on the F35 then no RED or ARRI is going to save you.

What concerns me about the industry is that it seems to be pushing further
and further away from the look that makes F35 so special in many ways.
This is all of course my opinion but the F65 from what I've seen seems
nice but sterile and the F55/F5/FS700 all seem to treat skin tones very
poorly and have a distinctly un-film-like quality to them, and these are
all Sony cameras!

I've been genuinely surprised to see how little image mojo the new F's from
Sony have. Even the 65 is a bit dry (but it's still better than the
5/55). Maybe it's CMOS vs. CCD's? I see footage from the Ikonoscop and
even the new D-Bolex and they have a certain somethin'-somethin' to them
that I find quite appealing. There's a warmth there (and I'm not
talking color, either).

I'm not concerned about 4k anytime soon, but I'm on my own schedule with this stuff.

I totally agree, there is that mojo with the F35.

I have shot quite a bit with the F55 (raw) and it was very hard to get an
organic mojo-ish look in the grade, even tho the raw is pushed through
slog2.
Having said that, it was really awesome to have a native ISO of 1250, not having to light as much
as I do with the F35, and of course flicking 240fps when i need to, but the aliasing without changing to the 2k OLPF is pretty bad and some
shots were unusable.
And again, shot the F65 on a few shoots too, same clinical/ non mojo-ish issues,
great fast 800 ISO, the 120fps was great, and without aliasing.

Sony definitely only nailed one camera in history, the F35, and who knows
how much of the success is due to Panavision working along side them.
I'm almost inclined to remove the "sony" badge on my camera as it almost gives the F35 a bad name.

I've not found any camera to give me the joy the F35 does. and Ive shot
plenty (Canon C300, Fs700, F55, F65 and Alexa) and the only 2 cameras I
have the same feeling for is the Alexa and the F65, but honestly the F65
is waaaayyy to clean for my liking, and a bit clinical, but great for
sci fi movies IMHO.

I shot F55 for a music video recently and as much as its a great tool
with almost everything u could want, i still feel it has the "sony look"
(F35 is the ONLY sony that doesn't have the "sony look"
To me, MOST sony's have what i can only describe as a "thin layer of
plastic overlaid onto the image" look to them, most notable on skin in
medium/closups.

The F35 just doesn't have that, and maybe its because the F35 is the only
joined venture Sony has ever embarked on with another company
(panavision)

Supersampling will have a lot to do with that Justin - the camera needs absolutely no
artificial sharpening to produce a pin-sharp image thanks to the
massive sampling rate.

I shot one project with ALEXA and Ultra Primes once but I'm not sure I'd
use the combo again - technically excellent, but just too clean and
soulless.

But then on film I was always a fuji over kodak man

The F65 is not the ultimate 4K F35 we might hope for, that would be a CCD camera with F65 specs.
Ifyou have ever seen any Ikonoskop footage, it really is uncanny how it
replicates 16mm and when I saw the F35 I felt that same connection to
film. The analog nature of the CCD is what creates the digital film and
there must be some very pricey engineering reason that 4k CCD's are not
an option right now. CMOS technology is not filmic but it has something
that's a lot more important to the majority of the buying market: Low
Light Sensitivity. The big measure of any camera today seems to be 4k capable output and being able
to see down inside a dark sewer in the middle of the night with a 5.6 lens.

I think Genesis would be in there too, given it is shared design from that of Sony right?

But I agree there has been no other CineAlta camera that does what the F35
does inherently.

Coming from the Red world, where i shot and owned Red One, Scarlet and Epic...
i completely shifted when i got my hands on a F35, like i sold every
scrap of Red gear that i had. Now this is just my opinion, but the
Red(s), BMCC, FS100, FS700, C100, 300, 500... all those cameras have
come out and i have been lucky enough to shoot with almost all of them
for commercial projects. Still, when looking at footage at the end of
the day, the F35's native characteristics, its actual organic astetic
that is literally built into the hardware of the sensor and the boards,
is unique and has not been touched since.

My Epic killed the F35 on Reolution (obviously), frame rate, color temp
adjustment, ISO, size and weight, ergonomics, versatility and more....
but i would still rather take a F35 on a shoot over 2 Epic's purely from
the satisfaction that when i get home. I love the images...

I'm not quite sure what it is about the F5(5)/F65's image that doesn't sit
right with me, but somehow the image they produce looks and feels
'thinner' than F35/Alexa.

F35 is to Kodak Vision 2, as __ is to Kodak Vision 3. It's not the F65, we
want finer grain, not none at all. When will a camera that builds on the
strengths of the F35 exist?

My guess is there will be no next F35 (for Sony at least) period.

What it amazingly did in-camera we will probably not see in another Sony product for the rest of our lives.

Since 9000PL is same as F35 I think you fine.:thumbsup: