The Division of Image Quality

[filmguy123]

Would there still be a need for Alexa65 with a handful of $40,000 primes?

That's such a tricky question, because the second half is left off - would there still be a need for by whom?

You still need the $40,000 primes.

Right, because at the top end, while the noticeable image quality has well exceeded the point of diminishing returns, focus markings, focus breathing, usability, minor image blemishes, etc. are all critical tasks and the % of budget increase to move from $10k primes to $40k primes is a drop in the bucket.

For you and for me? I think it's pretty arguable if there's even a need for a Zeiss Milvus set of primes over a Sigma 18-35. I really like my Zeiss and I think they produce a super cool image, but the 18-35 far exceeds the 80/20 rule already.

So it just depends.

 

[Guest]

But - let's say, it's S1H inside the AF-100 body for $8,000. 6K compressed Raw, 4K 90P, all the bells, whistles, knobs, buttons and switches. And ISO 12,800, with CFexpress, IBIS, WiFi, AF and AI.

Would there still be a need for Alexa65 with a handful of $40,000 primes?

I believe so. There will always be the super high end, as there will always be super rich people. There will always be those people willing to pay a thousand times more for something that is excellently made.

Someone is willing to buy a rollex eventhough an iphone is sufficient to tell time and does a million other things.

So, cameras can always be made with better machining, and a more refined colour science, and on and on.

The thing is, the barrier between the low end and high end image quality is primarily exagerated by product design, rather than cost or engineering barriers.

My theory is, once image quality is democratized as it was at the peak of film, and as it is in the stills market, the high end will continue to get more refined and more expensive. But Dack the dad will be able to capture beautiful moments on a lovely camera that isn’t back breaking or expensive.

Do ameteurs with small budgets deserve good image quality? Ask yourself if it is possible, so why not?

The other question is will professionals and wealthy aficionados continue to pay more for better craft amd improve aesthetics? I know they will.

 

[Guest]

You still need the $40,000 primes.

I was messing around with Signature Prime on a Mini LF a few weeks ago. It was incredible to see. No perceivable chromatic aberations, no breathing, super sharp wide open, bokeh anyone could like, lovely color and contrast, light weight magnesium housing.... and i found myself asking, doni need this? And truth be told, i don’t think i do. I like it, even caught myself getting giddy, but i am wuite satisfied with other types of lenses. But incredible engineering, and really lovely to see and hold.

 

[DLD]

You still need the $40,000 primes.

Eh, not really. Otus primes are $5,000-$6,000 each. Rehousing is another couple of grand per.

Or, heck, get some Xeens at $1,500.

The point being is that the "intended audience" won't know Xeens from Zeiss or Cookes.

 

[Guest]

But - let's say, it's S1H inside the AF-100 body for $8,000. 6K compressed Raw, 4K 90P, all the bells, whistles, knobs, buttons and switches. And ISO 12,800, with CFexpress, IBIS, WiFi, AF and AI.

Forgive me while i twist the meaning of this post.

I think one of the things, is buyers, users, marketers, designners, we often makeup cameras by the specs. At the end of the day, they don’t mean the same thing in the field.

2K heavy camera with no internal ND, no af, and iso3200 shows noise, that chews through batteries for USD$80,000? Doesn’t sound like a dream, but it is the industry standard and one of the top cameras available.

So, cameras for professionals should be made for their work, and not to have the checklist of top specs. Design should be wholstic and with purpose, not a cram it all in there in as small a package as that will fit.

 

[Guest]

Eh, not really. Otus primes are $5,000-$6,000 each. Rehousing is another couple of grand per.

Or, heck, get some Xeens at $1,500.

Totally agree, except, i didn’t notice onion ring bokeh on the signature primes, whereas i believe it exists on the otus primes. Also, the contrast on the Sigs felt more natural. I could have been influenced by the sticker price though :crybaby:

 

[DLD]

I think Alexa is the coolest thing that has rolled out of Munich since Gerd Müller (but not as cool as Gerd Müller) but a large part of its dominance is the DP's and the producers trying to defend their budget. There is an old German soccer line, which translated into an Americanism, goes something like that, "You play Tom Brady and he screws up and it's Tom Brady's fault. You play Jimmy Garofalo and he screws up and it's your fault". So, until someone takes a chance, it's ARRI by default.

But someone will take a chance.

 

[Paul F]

Eh, not really. Otus primes are $5,000-$6,000 each.

The need for $40,000 primes doesn't change because the camera got better. You either need them or you don't. None of us need the $40,000 primes. But someone thinks they do or they wouldn't exist. Better cameras won't change that.

 

[Guest]

I think Alexa is the coolest thing that has rolled out of Munich since Gerd Müller (but not as cool as Gerd Müller) but a large part of its dominance is the DP's and the producers trying to defend their budget. There is an old German soccer line, which translated into an Americanism, goes something like that, "You play Tom Brady and he screws up and it's Tom Brady's fault. You play Jimmy Garofalo and he screws up and it's your fault". So, until someone takes a chance, it's ARRI by default.

But someone will take a chance.

Yes, but Tom Brady on the Patriots is different than Tom Brady on the Broncos.

I’ll say this about the Alexa. They built it with far more purpose than most other cameras. You can see that immediately in how the designers balanced compromises.

The original camera was made for plugging into a predefined system. One where weight and power were not of big consequence.

One of the biggest complaints of digital is the “video” look. The hallmark of the video look is brittle highlights, not resolution. Unfortunately, Almost every digital camera falls to that description. Even the Alexa could be better. So the Aleviii sensor takes a hit on resolution with little consequence, but wins big on dynamic range and highlights. The other visual compromise, is they did not go with the most accurate colours, they went with adequately accurate, and slightly aesthetic. That may also appeal to cinematographers, as they may push the colours that way anyway. And if not, they can bring them back in post.

It is also interesting to see details like the air cooling is seperated from critical components, so the internal boards don’t get covered in dust. That is confidence building for professional buyers.

But I seldom see run n gun solo shooters shlepping a fat Alexa, because it isn’t really good at that.

 

[NorBro]

I think Alexa is the coolest thing that has rolled out of Munich since Gerd Müller (but not as cool as Gerd Müller) but a large part of its dominance is the DP's and the producers trying to defend their budget. There is an old German soccer line, which translated into an Americanism, goes something like that, "You play Tom Brady and he screws up and it's Tom Brady's fault. You play Jimmy Garofalo and he screws up and it's your fault". So, until someone takes a chance, it's ARRI by default.

But someone will take a chance.

Bad joke, bad analogy, bad whatever this is because TB is the GOAT (even New Yorkers realize this about Boston's favorite son) and it's never his fault.

And GAROPPOLO was traded to the 49ers before the 2018 season.

 

[NorBro]

The point being is that the "intended audience" won't know Xeens from Zeiss or Cookes.

But this is :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Paul F]

YES, YES, YES. YES, and YES! So what the fudge are we here for? Film makers go on about motion cadence, image quality, 4:2:2, 10-bit, megapixels, bokeh, film grain, lens breathing, chromatic aberration, dynamic range, grading, LUTS, logs, primes, video noise, color gamut, lens flares, mist filters, aspect ratio .... and the audience is perfectly happy to watch it on a 4" screen in sunlight.

 

[Guest]

I enjoy the differences between a Zeiss Standard and a Leica Summicron, and discussing the nuances of all lens characteristics. There will be a day when the Xeen may be the choice. The idea isn't that one is better than the other, as they all do different things. The idea is, which one is helping me?

The Xeen is a fine lens. If it ever makes my job better, I'll grab it in a heart beat. Currently it isn't on my radar.

 

[DBP]

My point was that "image quality is the most important thing over all" is simply not true for a lot of people, and used the working video/film professional who has a budget and a cast and a crew as my example.

This is true, but I think the important caveat is that there needs to be a certain baseline level of image quality achieved before it ceases to be the most important thing.

The 5D and early DSLRs were basically proof of that. When the image quality gap gets really large, people will put up with all kinds of nonsense to attain it. I don't think anyone misses the days of aliasing, overheating, wonky controls/menus, but at the time, many folks (myself included) considered it a pretty monumental leap over what was available. Control over DOF, *much* better low light, Canon color science, much better at handling blown highlights... the look of the videos between 5Ds and HVXs were night and day, so people subjected themselves to all kinds of stress to get that look.

But as you said, once that look caught up in other options, that was a wrap for DSLRs.

I remember people arguing against the look at the time, but history has shown us it was preferred and here to stay.

On the subject of image quality vs ergonomics, I'll never forget the C300 vs Scarlett release. Everyone, and I mean everyone laughed at the C300 specs compared to the Scarlett. Of course, the C300 went on to become the most widely used camera for a veeeeeeeeeeery long time, because it just worked and the image quality was good enough.

 

[combatentropy]

There is an old German soccer line, which translated into an Americanism, goes something like that, "You play Tom Brady and he screws up and it's Tom Brady's fault. You play Jimmy Garofalo and he screws up and it's your fault"

In the computer department at big companies, they used say, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Later they said Microsoft or Oracle. Anyway, I guess in Hollywood nobody ever got fired for renting Arri.

 

[DLD]

This is true, but I think the important caveat is that there needs to be a certain baseline level of image quality achieved before it ceases to be the most important thing...

And that's my point, not that Xeen is as good as Cooke or that S1 is as good as Alexa65 but that the difference is probably smaller than a cinematographer personal preference. In other words, a professional cinematographer can currently create great footage with a $10,000 package that most people won't be able to tell it apart from a $100,000 package. And someone will go for that $10,000 package soon enough, not just as a B/crash cam.

PS. NorBro, the German football line was with regard to Oliver Kahn (WC'02 Player of the Tournament) and Jens Lehmann, who replaced him in the WC'06. In the American equivalent, you can make an analogy with any starting QB and fans who clamor for his backup when the starter goes through a rough patch.

In the computer department at big companies, they used say, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Later they said Microsoft or Oracle. Anyway, I guess in Hollywood nobody ever got fired for renting Arri.

As a side note - I liked the F65 look even better but the camera was a PITA to operate. Quality wise, if it was good for Vittorio Storaro, it's good enough for the most mortals with an EFV.

 

[NorBro]

Oh, that's true!

That actually happens often with mediocre or overrated QBs. Or when a new QB takes over and people question why the previous one was traded.

 

[puredrifting]

If these manufacturing companies are laying off people and sales are dropping, I am curious where they are planning to go? Or is it just a sinking ship?

Filmed entertainment, as we know it, is definitely, overall a sinking ship. Gaming seems to be the future and filmed entertainment as we know it is radically downsizing and downscaling because people have so many other choices for entertainment plus there is that pesky "real world" that a lot of people over the past few years seem to have gotten more into. I would so much rather be under the ocean, on top of it on my SUP, hiking, backpacking, than sitting on a couch in front of a screen. I'd rather be doing all of those other activities IRL too than sitting in a movie theater and I am a rabid cinema fan. There is nothing to see in theaters that interests me anymore unless its a nostalgia showing of a new release of a classic film.

 

[Batutta]

Filmed entertainment, as we know it, is definitely, overall a sinking ship.

You just have to look at the porn industry now as the canary in the coal mine. The only people making real money in porn these days are the few free tube sites that have basically monopolized the industry, and subscription based sites. The amount of money made by the actual performers and creators is a fraction of what it was and dwindling by the second.

 

[El Director]

I should know, I've got over 40,000 subscribers, over 100 published videos, and over 8 million views, so not a tiny channel, probably much bigger than the vast majority of YouTubers, and my channel brings in maybe $100/month.

I don't mean to be rude, but you don't know. I have 15,000 subscribers, over 100 published videos and a mere 3,000,000 views. I currently make around $125 a month, double that before the adpocalypse. If someone with a smaller channel is making equal to or more than you (a fraction of your subs and channel views), then it's possible that more people than you think are making big bucks. It's wrong to think that because your channel isn't successful that everyone else is in the same boat.