I don't aspire to be a filmmaker, I just want to make my humble KZfaq videos to the best of my ability. The more I get into this world, the more respect I have for everyone in the film industry esp lighting crew, cinematographers, and editors. Thanks for sharing again!

I have been watching your videos for 7 years now. I love how you never pander to the viewers or the algorithm. And try to teach things that some people may not want to hear. It is an incredibly rare quality in social media. Please know there are a lot of us who appreciate you.

The difference is real. I have a tiny sony a6400. that use for photography & cinematography practice. but when i go on a film set, the image quality of an alexa is just mind blowing. you point the camera anywhere. it's produce an amazing image. combine that will goo lighting, you have yourself a painting.

The stylistic, filmic, and punchy color grading used in "The Creator" isn't a good showcase of your points and there are few to no other examples shown. You're using vague descriptions and giving excuses as to why you can't show us the difference without even attempting to. All this video does is instill FOMO and GAS into the audience. I would recommend doing a side by side comparison so we can actually see what you're talking about. Show us the limits of cheap sensors' color reproduction. Show us how motion apparently looks different (If you're talking about 23.98 vs 24 fps or shutter angle, those are issues that HAVE been fixed in some cameras). Show us how a hot sensor has lower quality (BTW heat has nothing to do with the Alexa's dynamic range). My point is, this video should have more evidence and less hearsay. It also throws a blanket statement across all "cheap" cameras while ignoring the many exceptions. I'm not trying to hate, I just think that this is a harmful mindset to teach. Even if you say there is no shame in using a "cheap" $4,000 camera, you are reinforcing the idea that you'll never be pro until you have an ARRI throughout the rest of the video.

The stuff you said about the color but especially the tonal gradations is absolutely TRUE. But what's not true is that it has anything to do with the camera being cheap. Cheap sensors are fully capable of reproducing those tonal ranges up to their dynamic range limit. The problem is that cheap cameras will not allow you to access the raw unprocessed sensor bayer data before it reaches the image processor. Even blackmagic RAW, Canon RAW and Prores RAW wont allow you to do that. The only cheap camera's that I'm aware of being able to reproduce rich tonal gradations with the same level of quality as the RED DSMC 1/2 and the ARRI are the Canon cameras that can run Magic Lantern. They won't reach anywhere above 12 stops of DR but within those 12 stops you'll be blown away by the way the sensor captured and reproduces light

You did no mention a thing about the lenses.

While all true, don't forget the real reason for the insane (for most) cost: Gatekeeping. They don't want competition. If more people could afford excellent equipment, the ones who are lucky enough to have the best jobs in the industry would feel some real threat to their job security.

ARRI is the industry standard but by no means required to make a good film.

Any camera could be used to make a movie: it depends on the ambitions of the cinematographer, the cast & crew. Now, this does not mean a cinematographer wants to use the cheapest camera ever made, but if someone really wanted to make a movie, Hollywood or Independent, if they have a camera, cast & crew, it could be done. The entire basis behind Italian Neorealism was that their filmmaking industry was eradicated during & after World War II & filmmakers such as Vittorio De Sica found a way to make films from whatever was in their reach.

The moment you get a little bit of recognition for your work the ego starts to inflate and the tendency to start gatekeeping must be overwhelming. I've made it, now I want to minimize competition because competing on an even playing field is hard.

Last year I had my first short doc projected in a movie theater (Cinema São Jorge, in Portugal). My shots were filmed using a GH5, vLog, and my Sigma lenses (17-50 f2.8, 10-20 f3.5) and Canon lenses (50 f1.8 and 70-200 f4), all with speedbooster, with natural light. The image hold its quality even in that big screen. I shot everything in UHD and delivered in FHD, the specs which I had to export the file were given by the film festival, and prepared the DCP. It looked great, I was a bit scared of that screen size for projection. After that first projection, It ran four cities, with different projection screen sizes, all held up. Of course, a 50000 dollars camera is better, but it will depend on the project. Much more important for me is the quality of the glass used. Oh, and the sound. You can get away with worse image quality, but low quality sound will destroy your movie!

I mostly disagree. Nowadays An Alexa LF or Venice would be lets say 20% better than a A7S3. The dynamic range & skin tones are better but if you control the lighting & have good lens the difference is really small. The logic behind using a 60K camera is that the camera cost is negligable in the overall budget of a film. So they better have the best of the best quality. It's more the lenses used & the lighting that will change the quality of the footage

It's about risk. It's pro ecosystem, reliability, familiarity, workflow, skill sets, depth and breadth of capability etc. 'You don't get fired for using an Alexa, but you will using a cheap camera if anything goes wrong' or 'you control the expensive equipment, the cheap equipment controls you' or 'a pro camera works around you, you have to work around a cheap camera'.

Mostly because they can afford it and the tech exists. Generally a studio doesn't mind paying a premium for an image that is 15-20% better. It gives them piece of mind and also workflows are established around industry standard gear.

"Don't throw the creator as a example" you said. But why not . They did that . And because you used gh5 and some other cameras and couldn't get best results means there might be some problem back then . But now a days smaller cameras are also much better . When one have low budget instead of renting a crew for arri or red it is better to go with smaller camera . Iam not talking about big budget movies here . If one have budget then they will go for arri or red . But the main thing also to consider here is the right tool for right job. THE CREATOR dop said that he choose fx3 for its smaller size and low light capability and If they want he can choose arri but instead he opted to go with the right tool in his mind.

A good story, progressing at the right pace, with good audio - these are enough to keep the audience hooked. No one is going to notice the technical subtleties mentioned in this video.

I am going to get the popcorn out for this one. I think you may have just opened a can of worms dude.

I am a stills shooter. I recently moved from Leica to Hasselblad, X2D. Same story. There is that image difference in color, tonality and just honest re-creation of what it saw.

I love your tutorials and explanations, so dang good, thank you

As this video states, know the limitations of your camera and make the best film you can within those limitations. When I saw "The Creator" in a cinema, it was so muddy and dark I walked out before the denouement (not to mention the derivative story-line). Yet, two of the most visually interesting films I have seen are Sean Baker’s breakout indie “Tangerine” and Steven Soderbergh's "HIgh Flying Bird", both shot on an iPhone. Tangerine was shot on an iPhone 5 and High Flying Bird on iPhone 8, believe it or not! The image quality of these two films are nowhere near cinema quality, but it doesn't matter because both films used lighting, set design, frame composition and actor blocking in highly creative ways to tell engaging stories (unlike The Creator). Soderbergh in particular composed his shots with graphic architectural lines in his background, and he built depth with prop placement in his mid and foregrounds because he knew these compositions would be enhanced on the iPhone 8 inherent wide angle lens. Understanding your camera limitations is one thing, but understanding how to be a creative within the confines of those limitations separates the men from the boys.

I agree with everything you said here, but I think you left out one more key reason that Hollywood studios use the cameras they do, and that is reliability. If you ever work in the camera department on a Hollywood project, you aren't likely to be using some new sleek camera just purchased. You are going to be using rented gear, or something pulled from a studio warehouse shelf, that has been around for a few years and been used on several productions. It is going to be beat up, have dings and scratches, and almost certainly there will be a few things that don't work quite right on it. I've worked on a few productions that used big, $100,000+ camera rigs, but these cameras always came with issues. When the cameras were checked out, there would be a "discrepancy report." This was basically a list of what didn't work right or was damaged on that camera- Things like certain ports that had been damaged and no longer worked, or the battery latch didn't latch any longer, so you'd have to use gaff tape to help secure the battery. But the cameras themselves would hold up to this kind of abuse. So they could keep going out on production after production for years. And it is not abnormal for these cameras to be kept around for 5, 10, even 15 years sometimes. A more affordable cinema camera, I don't think, would survive the kind of abuse that typical Hollywood studio equipment endures. Over ten years, that $30,000 Alexa is only $3,000 a year. So that is in the range of something like an FX3 or Pocket 6K, which probably wouldn't survive the abuse of large productions for much longer than a year anyway.

By no objective measure does the Venice 2 look twice as good as the FX3. By no objective measure does Arri ever look like the most detailed image. I really enjoy a lot of your essays, but you veered into hand-waving voodoo on this one.

@wolfcrow , It's a really good insight .much appreciated .

I love how you mentioned color tonality rather than color science as the latter is down to how the raw data is processed and encoded (also related to aesthetics), not because of the camera sensor. Cameras should be chosen for how much information it captures, not how filmic or video-like the color science looks as that can be manipulated with a mathematical transform/LUT.

Love your videos man.

I can’t tell for sure, but I see “qualitative” differences between cameras. As an example, I shoot underwater documentaries, and have used Sony Mirrorless and Canon Cinema more recently. I am a one man crew… color grading has been really hard for me through the years - water can be nasty on colors. However, since I started working with the Canon C300 MIII my life got easier, and I was able to focus more on the story. Even when shooting under conditions that are supposed to be identical, the Canon grades almost perfect with one minute of work, but the same with the Sony used to take me 2-3 hours to do. I have no agenda, I am a one man shop, and all I will say is that there is a difference between my $15k Canon and my $3k Sony that makes a difference to my story.

Sorry i believe majority of the cameras available are sufficient enough to make amazing images. The real reason for Arri and other cameras being used in big budget films is that they're battle tested and reliable on top of their great image. Plus they're widely used making it easy to work with others. However, i believe most cameras out now is more than enough to make a film.

Honestly I think if there are really obvious differences between the visual image quality between prosumer cameras and Cinema cameras, that's just as much of a benefit as a downside. Having unpredictable quirks in the image isn't necessarily a bad thing, if it was there wouldn't be apps to replicate the look of disposable film cameras of VHS cameras you could download, but there are. And in the cinema world, people use anamorphic or vintage lens not because it makes their films look more accurate to how they looked in person, but to make the film look more visually interesting. At the end of the day, while saying something like 'this camera is more true to life' might be objective, saying 'this camera looks the best' is just a mater of opinion.

I agree with everything. I’m a dslr BMPCC shooter and I have to agree with everything said.

The revolutionary introduction of Blackmagic Design Cine cameras nearly put an end to the division of cameras into professional and prosumer categories. Needless to say, with the advent of cameras like ''pyxis'' in 2024, broken the myth that only expensive cameras can produce professonal cinema quality , It's clear that in the coming years, companies like Arri, which sell expensive cameras, will have to eliminate themselves or redesign their products with the cost out of 1/10 to maintain their presence in the market. This is a big change another example is that Panasonic has recently dropped their films from Professional and Consumer categories.

Weird the fact that you mentioned the creator as if it looked bad. i saw it on a big ass cinema theater and thought it looked much better than most movies shot on Alexa

A Canon R5 C (has a fan and Netflix approved) along with a Ninja V+ using 8K ProRes RAW HQ (you get Canon Log2) … processed/graded and presented in HDR can absolutely handle the necessary tonal gradations and dynamic range to look great on a 4K movie screen or large OLED television. Not knowing how each step in the process could potentially add compression to your footage is very important. I record everything in ProRes. I stay in that format throughout editing in FCPX and final output file is ProRes. Yes, it takes up a lot of drive space, but it’s also pristine quality with nearly imperceivable compression artifacts. You don’t want those on a big screen, they are amplified exponentially. If it has to be compressed after that (delivery to KZfaq or Netflix, or … anything else) it will hold up well.

I would sort of maybe disagree. The biggest reason for me is post flexibility, reliability/ low likelihood of unexpected failure and speed/ease of use on set. Visible image quality is part of that, but I think of it more as "lack of image problems that cannot be easily fixed in post". I would also say having tested both that a Komodo X is more than good enough (and looks almost the same - like maybe even the same - as a Raptor). Heck, even an Epic X will get you there. Older expensive cameras (now cheaper used) had much better quality control and didn't have skimp on components and careful manufacturing. They will still give you amazing results now, at an affordable price. A DSLR or BM camera? No.

Whats your opinion on the Sony A1?

It’s funny how medium or mediocre DPs are always talking about cameras capabilities, it’s so frustrating. Basically they are saying that you are not a real cinematographer if you can’t afford Sony Venus, Sony Burano, alexa mini or LF… don’t listen to them fellows, the only ones who are talking us cam specs are youtubers and influencers! What grown up cinematographers are teaching us is to focus on the story, camera specs are only one step in telling visuals history, storytelling is a universe not a camera brand or specs. I encourage you all whom aspire to be a cinematographer to listen to Roger Deakins

So the motion judder is just "feature" of consumer cameras. I was going crazy trying minimize that effect, but only solution I came up with was to just shoot 30 or higher frames per second.

hey when you are right, you are right. Higher quality sensor, camera MADE for high data rates, a actual cinema only camera and sturdy af is gonna be a win over any "tiny" 8k camera. or said even shorter and mentioned already: its tv or the internet VS big huge screens. its ok to pick a lane and stay in it, just get better and switch when you are ready.

Awesome video man! I was totally unaware of what you say about the differences being even greater when you project on the big screen, and that no content creator notices exaggerated differences between, for example, an ARRI and an A7, because they do not reproduce it in media that allows them to observe the difference in image quality. However, I think it would have been good to mention for all the filmmakers who are starting out, that movies that use "cheap" cameras (assuming that any of us ever achieve a Hollywood budget) will probably never have to worry about that, because our movies will be exhibited in rooms that do not have such detailed screens, or will be seen from the gaming monitors and cell phone screens of someone at home through a streaming service. As a lover of cinema (yes, including blockbusters) I must say that anyone who wants to dedicate to this has to do it for the love of the expression and the art of the image, and not for the pretensions of being famous and seeing their movie projected in an imax theater or something like that. We have to aim towards the audience that our pocket allows, and there is nothing wrong with our movies being watched from cell phones or a normal tv. In fact, it is a help for us because we will not have to worry about the "limitations" of our "cheap" cameras

i wanna ask something tho. we have a low budget but me and my two friends are developing a really good script to shot a feature film and we are decide to use sony FX3 bc of the budget , could you guys give me advice to pull this off and create a cinema worthy film ? btw I live in Ethiopia FYI.

where can i watch your movies?

I rigged out my small mirrorless camera recently then came here to be humbled by crushing my dreams with facts

Steven Soderbergh would disagree because he made many feature-length films with mobile phones, especially with the iPhone. Sometimes it’s style that matters. You can have the best gear and turn in a crappy feature no matter how sharp or precise the image may be; sometimes, the imperfection is what makes the film iconic.

You have some fair points. I also understand why many people disagree with you. You broadly define cheap cameras with a list of qualities only you deem valid. The Creator is a perfect example of why your personal qualifications for a good vs cheap camera is invalid. Ironically enough, you even conclude with your use of the R5 that a cinematographer really should consider the limits of the tool rather than the tool being too cheap to be capable to produce quality. I highly recommend you check out a video Potato Jet made with an older Arri digital camera. In summary, the camera still produced gorgeous color rendition but lacked in other areas. If I remember the video correctly, he compared it to a Canon C300 MK3 or a Sony A7S MK3. I forget. But ultimately the newer camera was better overall. I believe the fairest point you made is how a better camera is akin to a better tool to get the job done faster and cheaper. You could consider a multi million dollar project using a $100k camera to avoid spending millions in post to correct noise in footage. Though I would argue that argument is blown out of proportion with The Creator. The VFX cost the most in that movie and it wasn't to correct footage. It's a Sci-Fi movie with tons of add-in post assets. If they toned down the add-ins, such as removing the transparent wheel like things on the androids in the movie, the movie would have cost significantly less.

Thank you for explaining why the Alexa picture has always looked like a film-era Hasselblad to me - in other words, top-class. You went so much farther, though, and it was a revelation.

I had to grade Ursa footage with an iPhone 14 pro max. Let me tell you, there is a difference! Anyone who says "It's just as good bro" is lying.

I agree- I think we need a follow up video showing that degradation and showing a camera getting worse with overheating .

Also, Hollywood doesn't own cameras, they rent cameras. They have to because if something goes wrong, they need a replacement camera immediately. They can't wait to buy another camera or something like that. Any "budgeted" movie, would always rent, even if the filmmaker owns equipment simply due to this factor. The insurance policy also doesn't cover personal equipment and sure you can always rent your camera to the show for an extra buck, why would you do that on a low budget production? In the end, you'll always want to rent and currently, cameras like the Venice 1 and Alexa Mini's, can be rented for not much money and they're both excellent cameras.

Good technical points 👍

I’m not at the highest levels on set yet, but my honest opinion for why “cheap cameras” aren’t used on set is simple. Reliability. The Alexa series in particular is reliable, strong, built to take a beating, and always works. Also, when it comes to professional filmmaking, it’s less about “expensive” and more about “the standard” or “the best.” When you’re spending 100s of 1000s or millions of dollars on a project, you damn well better film it on the best system you can. That comes down to the camera, the lenses, the monitors, the focus system, the wireless video, the tripod, the dolly, the jib, the lights, the stands, the audio gear, the memory cards, the laptop(s), the headphones, the walkie talkies, the carts…….at every step of the process, producers want to know that they made sure that everything works and it won’t be a problem on set. It’s not just about the image, it’s also about the workflow. Knowing it’s going to work every single time.

He had super valid points here... Of course you can use whatever camera to make a movie no doubt but executing a movie at a high level is expensive and time is money so having a camera system that doesn't easily fall apart when subjected to the elements and allows you to work through the day hassle free is definitely key.

Little mention here of the value of 'production tools' - you need to show the image to the director, the producters, art department, make up, a solid SDI is going to make this happen. Any lens thats not a PL will have backlash from the focus motor which will jerk the image. Most cheap cameras are not solid enough to pull focus. Then those cine lenses.. sure they look OK.. but its all about fast lens changes that work with the remote focus for the 1st a/c. Now be in namibia and drop your alexa.. you can get one on a bike from Joburg. You keep shooting. .. its nothing about image and all about keeping every department in the production fully in motion. Jam synch time code.. that will be a few $$$ saved in post. its all about production tools

in my deluded fantasies of being a film director, I recall that I really liked the film quality of All Quiet on the Western Front (2022), generally it was made with an Alexa 65 (+3 other cams), but I read that a cheaper alternative for the same look is a Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera for around $2000 - which is affordable

100% accurate. I have a friend releasing a Indi film this weekend. I’ve seen clips. It’s good but the rolling shutter judder is a ROUGH hacked mess from some DSLR… we all see it but I don’t think most people know how to describe it. I also own an Alexa so I’m a bit spoiled.

Another thing you need to learn is "field of view" and the trick theaters play on you. Believe it or not, your home TV may actually have a wider field of view than most seats in a cinema. I've had many films I've worked on, shown in cinemas and they're always MUCH softer than the home video release. In fact, over-all, outside of Dolby Vision and IMAX HDR released, I'd say generic theaters have little to offer compared to OLED HDR TV's at home and UHD BluRay. The concept that you're making something to be seen in the theater and that the quality of the camera is related to that, is a bogus and completely disproven theory. A film maybe shown in the theater for a few months, but it lives on home video for decades. What it looks like at home, is what you should be focused on. If it looks good on your home 4k TV and iPhone/iPad, then it'll look totally fine in the theater when you're dealing with REFLECTED LIGHT against a screen! The losses in that presentation format are tremendous. That's why even the highest resolution digital cinema, doesn't hold a candle to a good HDR OLED display, it really can't unless you use some magic like IMAX and Dolby Vision do. None of that tech is available at home and probably never will be.

I'm a fairly new Alexa mini owner/operator, and I totally experience what you're saying about the color gradation. I've been getting my feet wet with the the Alexa on corporate projects, with sony FX3 as a b cam. I can match most shots to an extent, but when it comes to those skin tones, I just can't get it to perfectly match the Alexa. As you said, it literally won't capture those "in between" colors (that skin tones are FULL of), nothing like what that the Alexa captures. I never knew what true skin tones were until I started filming with the Alexa. Sadly, my eyes are ruined to other cameras now lol

I agree 100% with on everything you are saying it here, you get what you pay for it, no $5k camera can come close to Arri Alexa that cost $40-65k 👍🏻

Bad puns and dad jokes aside I love this video. I might have phrased certain things a little bit differently or used different examples. But on balance his thesis is 100% correct, and I will unapologetically using the bullet points from this video to make the case for not shooting on a cheap camera when other options are available. Sometimes people just need to be made aware that they have more options than they realized. Thanks for putting this together.

What about cameras like the Netflix approved Sony fx3? That costs a few thousand. I know the point is on the big screen and they’re primarily streaming but they do have movies that go to theatres

Youve skipped on 2 major contributors: Lemses and Lighting. The sensor can only puckup what the lens sees. There's a heck of a difference between a $1000 lens and $100k PL lens.

Machine learning and AI might not take away jobs, but all the issues you have mentioned above is where Machine learning can easily be implemented. Sures its gonna need a large amount of training data but once someone has decided to fix it, that would be really interesting.

You can get a sigma fp shoot uncompressed raw and use slim raw . One extra step but I have been using past few months and the quality of color is really good

Agree 100% Recently directed a 5 part series which premiered at IMAX here. Shot it on Komodos with DZO glass. Fantastic results. I knew it was gonna look good but damn. While not a low light camera the Komodo does pretty well as long as you know what you’re doing.

It would be great if you can give us a contrast between the quality side by side with real examples, you used some terms that are hard to understand without watching a sample footage/clip.

I've seen juddering in plenty of movies, and I've read that it happens when you pan faster than the image width every so many seconds.

Wtf, I just stumbled upon one of the best videos in a long while... Great!!

I dont get the point, isnt this obvious? Good thing is no one left a Movie saying, :"Well the film is great but if they had filmed with an Arri cam would be better."

Thank you for being honest 😮

Being able to easily grade an image from a higher quality camera makes life easier. Trying to learn how to grade on a low quality camera is like trying to learn how to become a racecar driver in a model T car - You might be a very good driver, but never know because you can't get your hands on race car.

let me go and cry! hahaha great vid. Thanks for sharing.

Totally agree 👍🏻amazing video and aloot ot non professional videographer don't understand coz they don't have experience.

I don’t think the sensor is the only factor. But rather…the entire circuitry and cooling system. They do make a difference in many sense, yet story is above all. The smaller mirrorless cameras have a certain look to them that can be used for certain things.

The cameras that will be coming out in the next few years will be rivalling the Alexa in many ways. We will be getting global shutter, 14 stops of DR and full frame open gate. In the end the only limitation of making a good film is not going to be down to the cameras used, it will come down to anything but that.

This video sets a lot of the points I argue with my friend who rents film equipment. I see he is right in many things and I am also right in a few... Ive seen so many movies shot with arri looking bad and others shot with BMCC4K looking good that I keep thinking that lights and lenses are 90% of the magic. But so many other things come from the body. So Yeah I guess you and him may have a few good valid points.

An asterisk that comes with the Arri footage is that the people doing the lighting are professionals who only do lighting and have done lighting full time for a long time, compared to the indie people. Also, because of the film's bigger budgets with an Arri the lighting crew has more resources with which to make the best lighting. More experience, more full-time professional big budget experience, and more resources. Add to this, highly paid full-time professional colorists with much more experience than indie colorists who have another full-time job to pay the bills. These things will make the footage from an Arri look better than a low budget camera. Around 2011 I read of a big time, Hollywood Director who had a number of his Director friends over. In his home screening room he showed them 4 film clips. Afterwards, he then told them that one of the clips was shot on a Canon 5D MK IV. NONE of the professional Hollywood Directors could pick out which clip it was. That was then. I agree when zooming in to finished footage that you can see artifacts with the cheaper cameras, but we don't watch films in theaters "zoomed in." I understand a large screen will reveal more, but I don't remember any average movie goer complaining about the quality of The Creator footage when it was showing in theaters. My contention is that we can analyze and compare side by side footage shot on a $4K camera and a $300K camera and see the differences.....but the audience never sees movies this way, and thus the difference is not revealed to them, and they know no difference. It would be interesting to see the same lighting crew, using the same equipment, and the same colorists, all used on big budget Hollywood movies shoot a scene with a $4,000 camera, and THEN compare the footage to an ARRI camera. This would be an apples to apples comparison. However, it is possible that if this were done, and the difference in footage was negligible, the budget for future film could be negatively impacted.

"The right tool for the (specific) job" .. Good thing is that technology advances: Take the FUJIFILM GFX 100 II (with an Pl-mount adapter, a V-mount power setup and the usual other bits and pieces. Result? You spend less than 20k (without lens) and you are a visibly huge step closer to the "this cam is worth a house" look. Love it for that reason (And it takes great Photographs as well ) ...

I can agree on this for the most part. I think a more primary reason for expensive cameras is exclusivity and, on the practical side, multi-team use. If the budget is high enough, why not use the most expensive. When it camera the department, a lager camera requires a whole department to operate it, creating more jobs on set. Oh and you forgot to mention film cameras, which is all the expensive camera try to replicate. What all filmmakers try to replicate. Good video overall tho 👍

I agree with you. But I have a question? A couple of Hollywood directors shot entire films on a cell phone. How does that fit in with what you just said? By the way, you're by far my most favorite cinematography channel.

amazing video

I definitely agree with your points here. I’m just a bit more on the side of knowing that although cameras like the Alexa mini are fantastic nearly unmatched workhorses they are still overpriced from what they should be. Not talking about mirrorless here. The best case I think on that is that I know of a handful of cinematographers who wouldn’t dare touch digital and rather use film, but they loved the URSA 12k classic which was originally released at $10k. Granted it’s still more than $2k but I don’t think the Alexa 35 is really worth its asking price. It’s definitely worth a ton don’t get me wrong but we all kinda know we’re getting up-charged for a name. But if you got the Arri name go for it I guess right?

In the end, everybody rents everything they need to accomplish their projects. Nobody has to pay the full price. It's more accessible than it seems.

It’s for the same reason F1 is driven with expensive race cars and not the Toyotas pickups. Sure, an FX3 can shoot an amazing image, but an Arri will give you a better image, along with way more other features. You always want to use the best possible thing your budget can afford you, and big productions have big budgets.

What do you think of the Blackmagic cameras then?

Great Video. Thank you. RED DSMC2 Epic-W Helium 8K S35 , How about Helium and Gemini 5k for Low Budget Feature film? as these cameras are almost 75% off of their original Price. or some are on ebay 80% off. RED is big in Cinema Image. and only downside I feel is the RED RAW footage is too big in size.

Well… that’s debatable! Let’s go back in time, and remember the 2008-2012 when the cinema cameras such as Red One and the Alexa were almost the only choice when choosing to shoot digital, and none of them come close to the FX3. Remember the days when you hated to use DOF adapters to get shallow depth of field??? Come on man, I can use any blackmagic camera and get great quality, good enough to be projected.

The main issues are indeed color, DR, black render and noise. It's called high end cinema camera for a reason.

Filmmakers are upset because a small camera with one person can take the work of an entire team. Conflict of interests😅

I'm not sure a GH5 or R5 are a good reference here. They lack in dynamic range and reliability, with the R5 having a record limit and obvious overheating problems and 15ms rolling shutter. FX3 is on par with RED Raptor's rolling shutter speed, same with Alexa. Only Venice 2 has the fastest rolling shutter which is less than 3ms. The A9III is being used on a new film as well, and The Creator had the most organic looking night scenes vs any film so far and one of the best looking VFX.

So my take away from this is that if I don’t spend tens of thousands of dollars on a top end monitor to watch films, I’m good?

I saw the Creator, it looked fine. I've been in the business for 30 years. The only person who ever has questioned my quality was a colorist. Pixel peepers will never be happy even if they have 500K resolution.lol

Why would a cinema add extra compression to the image? 🤔

@wolfcrew Here’s what I mean. Yes the Alexa sensor captures more raw info than just about any other sensor, but that doesn’t make some kind of space magic it’s just a well designed sensor. I’ve got a buddy who’s working as dp for a series on prime and I tried to get him to check into the URSA 12k cause after working with the footage myself and blown on to the big screen, cause I have a theatre system for editing, the difference from the Alexa classic and in some areas the 35,(again some not all I still have some issues with the 12k classic) is I think in the URSA’s favor. in fact it’s why the commercial opening at the emmie’s for, if I remember right, 2022, was filmed on the 12k classic and not the Alexa because I and other dp’s find it’s closer to film due to it’s symmetrical color patter rather than a bayer and resolutions closer to theoretical film resolutions. But my friend was convinced that arri has specs that aren’t listed like 19stops of dr. And I’m just saying this view of cinema as needing to be $30k+ and being magical is dumb because all you need to do it look at the factories for production and R&D and it should not be $75k I’m not saying it should be even$12k and I’m not saying your wrong that real cinema is expensive and thinking otherwise it’s unhealthy. I’m just saying when RED is charging over $800 for one 500gb memory card and blackmagic’s new m.2 drives are $1700 for 16TB included with the camera mind you, they’re really just charging extra because they can. Not to say it’s not better than the cheap stuff but it’s still overpriced from what it should be.

Well said.

I thought hollywood had used the Canon 5D MKii in some instances(?)..

But cheap cameras are being used for films. You pointed out an example yourself. The fact that you think of it as bad quality is irrelevant, the movie did fine.

Your obviously right. Can you explain to me why people get mad over this kind of stuff, i actually am genuinely curious. The same people get mad over any kind of innovation. If you say you like shooting 8k better... everyone comes out to yell at you. One time i said i like having 2 card slots and i had soooooo many people get mad at me. And another time i said i want a cf express type b card in my next camera and everyone went crazy. You say a 20k camera is better than a 1k camera and everyone starts saying your an idiot. What is wrong with people.

Just slapped your channel with the subscription, I hope it doesn’t hurt 😂 Please make more of this contact

The only people who are really paying attention to most of this stuff are us the people behind the cameras and the editors. The people who actually watch the movies for enjoyment don’t care and not paying attention to the small amount of noise in the shadows or color science etc. Yes we want great quality shown in our work but only the filmmakers care about the small nuances of the final project. IMO

i think its really just lighting and lenses

1:38 what's that brother

I tried to find the video in your uploads but couldn't. I do remember when Nikon Z9 was launched you tried to convince us that it was far better than Sony Venice. I may be wrong but my consciousness says it was you.