Shane Hurlbut: C300 VS Alexa

Kholi said:
I mean, of course I know how much an Alexa costs. You don't think that was blatantly insulting? LOL.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It's a fine line. I meant it as a rhetorical question and not as an insult, but I readily accept that it could easily be seen that way. Apologies.

Kholi said:
but the inquiry wasn't backhanded, it was genuine: every time a versus thread comes up, someone--without fail, needs to let everyone know that so and so is using the camera to do this or that. What's the point?

Just because one major director uses a Go Pro to capture his monumental scene doesn't mean much more than that's the choice he made. Is it done to invalidate other people's opinions on the boards? I'm sincerely confused as to why that matters or people do it.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's meant to invalidate someone else's opinion as much as it's meant to reinforce another opinion. If I can link to a photo taken from the set of "Rush," on which a lot of money is on the line and which is being shot on Alexa, and show that the C300 is being used as a b-cam, then it reinforces the notion that the C300 doesn't actually look terrible next to the Alexa. Because if it did, if people with the money thought that the C300 wasn't up to the task, why would they be putting that pile of cash on the line?

I guess semantically, by reinforcing one opinion, that automatically means you're trying to invalidate the opposing one, though. I mean, that's the whole point of debate, right?
 
Last edited:
My thoughts.... I thought both did not look all that great. They both have good detail...but the oversharpened video look on the C300 always take me out. The skin tone on the Alexa looked decent....but a bit smoothed over in certain shots. I've seen many many Alexa footage (and that show is one of my current favorites) but these shots didn't do it any justice. I don't doubt that the C300 would be a good "B" cam....but in this example...if I were to nitpick....we could start with how the colors did not match between the two cameras (that was the very first thing that stuck out to me). And finally....


....what happened to homegirl's bleach blond hair? I mean...talk about being thrown a monkey's wrench. Geez!!! I'm gonna need some time to myself....the horror. :-P
 
Weird test video. The Alexa looked soft and off balance and the C300 was sharper and more balanced. I know better, but it's hard to say anything positive with this test. I have seen amazing footage from both cameras so this really didn't do justice to either. I'm sure it helped get some blog hits. :)
 
Wait a minute, what is the "Baby Alexa"? I am going to be a Noob and not do a Google search, but I thought there was there is the Alexa (Momma Alexa) and the Alexa Studio (Poppa Alexa)... so what is the Baby Alexa?
 
David G. Smith said:
Wait a minute, what is the "Baby Alexa"? I am going to be a Noob and not do a Google search, but I thought there was there is the Alexa (Momma Alexa) and the Alexa Studio (Poppa Alexa)... so what is the Baby Alexa?
Click to expand...

It's just a colloquial term that some people (or marketing team) dubbed on the C300.
 
David G. Smith said:
Wait a minute, what is the "Baby Alexa"? I am going to be a Noob and not do a Google search, but I thought there was there is the Alexa (Momma Alexa) and the Alexa Studio (Poppa Alexa)... so what is the Baby Alexa?
Click to expand...


Wait tell you see Sister Alexa at NAB. :-)......
 
And TOTALLY agree here. Couldn't say anything opposite this post, and you're saying what I'm thinking: baby Alexa is a stretch. When I hear Baby Alexa I immediately go "Oh, looks like Alexa good".
Click to expand...

isn't weird that even if a camera was exactly on par with the Alexa, you would still call it baby Alexa because of the price difference alone.

this may seem harsh(sad but true), it's not logical to assume someone would understand an opinion about a comparison, if you have to explain to him the difference between baby and adult.
 
Get the thread back on track:
Alexa is the standard. And in these clips it looks worse than it is. But everyone who watches shows like GoT knows how it can look.
The C300 seems not to be in C-log mode. It has a blue tint and looks like sharpness is above -10, where it should be. Also they overexposed on the white shirts. The C 300 was C and D cam, so they probably haven't been bothered too much.

To me as a C300 owner it is just good to see this camera with its internal codec and without huge rig being considered as a B-Cam to the Alexa. Just look at the pictures how the rigs look.

Alexa is superior, the stills show there is a lot of leeway left for post. It is an extremely great camera. But the C300, softened down a bit looks good considering its price. And I rather rent a crane for the C300 than for the Alexa rig.
 
No wonder this video looks so bad! Just found this in the comments from Shane:

"I baked all this in and there was no color correction done. This was straight out of both cameras"

"The reason for the Cine 2 Gamma was the fact that this was a fast turnaround for HBO so minimal color correction was the best way to handle this. I shot the Alexa on rec. 709 and the Cine 2 seemed the closest."

Yep, he did shoot Rec.709, with Cine2 gamma - which has a very harsh rolloff, about a stop +/- less DR and default sharpness set to 0, which is far too high if you want a film-look. And then he complains that it looks too much like video!I shouldn't be surprised, though - Shane can do some beautiful cinematography, but after reading through his blog posts and comments, he seems to make a lot of odd choices and claims that seem so naive to me.
 
imho its best to compare apples with apples. Although its a stroke to C300's ego to even be compared to a camera almost 6 x the price, the test was hardly scientific or even a bloom non scientific. Cine gamma 2 with extra sharpening and hard highlight clipping is a sure way to get a "video" look and blow out the shirt, C-Log was not used therefore not all the DR was achieved. The Alexa actually looked very soft most of the time, and even slightly out of focus (and we all know that's not usually the case with properly handled shots)

imho this test does injustice to both cameras, and who knows what the intention really was, to put this side by side comparison out there. its silly. Those that have a C300 know its a huge step up from the dslr's, and those that own an Alexa know its a step up from the C300 (1080P 120 fps, 10bit 4:4:4, 2 stops extra DR) but for 6 x the price? is it worth it for indie film makers? maybe for rental houses, but for not for indies. Thats 600% extra cost for maybe 16% more DR.

Up from the dslrs, one can truly say we have gained more latitude, true color/sharpness/resolution, 4:2:2 and even a bloody good 720P 60fps
 
If you read the comments I get the feeling Shane was not overly impressed by the C300.
Enrique Pacheco, I completely agree. The camera is a video camera. The 5D is inherently cinematic like the Alexa. Period
Click to expand...
 
hgf4 said:
If you read the comments I get the feeling Shane was not overly impressed by the C300.
Click to expand...

Which makes me think he's not really sure how to use it. It's little quotes like that that leave me scratching my head. Of course, to each their own.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Which makes me think he's not really sure how to use it. It's little quotes like that that leave me scratching my head. Of course, to each their own.
Click to expand...
You could be right. I think Shane really knows his stuff but he hasn't had much time with the camera. But do you think he could be right, that footage from the 5D will inherently look more cinematic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top