Dan Finlayson

The page you linked doesn't say that it's natively C-41 - just that the example photos were processed that way. Have you seen it confirmed elsewhere that it's a C-41 stock?

When you say highest resolution, are you saying they are highest res looking at just the Super 35 area of the image circle? Or are you projecting the whole image circle on the same size screen and evaluating the lenses as they would most commonly be used?

@Thuryn Mitchell You'll always want your timeline/sequence in your NLE to be set to 24fps (or 23.976 when appropriate). You'll then want to tell your NLE to play back your 22fps footage at 24fps instead. You can now drop it in your timeline like any other footage

I see - I think this simplifies the financial side of things. You don't need this camera to pay for itself quickly, it's a tool as a means to an end - great looking narrative films. In the narrative world where you're using your own camera in the first place, I don't think the resolution of the Amira will be a roadblock. I would treat it like 50-70% of whatever you spend on this camera you won't get back. You're converting that money into having a tool that allows you do the work you want to do. If that number is an amount you feel comfortable spending, go for it. If that number feels even a little scary, skip it.

Agreed. I don't see much need for a proper mattebox when doing this sort of thing though. Worst case, tape the ND to the front of the lens. This is also why I recommended that very large, handheld split prism - way easier to get the coverage over the frame with the wider lenses

I guess keep in mind that focal length has a huge impact on how pronounced the effect is per prism.

This is absolutely a prism. It could be something the photographer found, like grandma's chandelier, or it could have been something purpose built for photography. There's a company based in Arizona called Prism Lens FX that produce a variety of interesting gadgets to throw in front of your lens. Here's a link to their site, directly to the product most similar to the effect in these photos. I love the handheld diopter they produce - I've used the effect for years but with standard diopters it's a pain. They make one with a handle just like the half prism I linked to that makes manipulating the image way easier.

What would be your goal with this camera? Would it be primarily for your commercial work or for low budget feature/narrative work?

I just used the newest generation of Teradek on a shoot. The unit was honestly terrible to work with - the transmitter and receiver simply would not remain paired after a power cycle. This can't be normal behavior, is it? The Bolt line of products doesn't do this...

I've shot 10 rolls within the last year. On one roll a perf ripped right at the beginning but I think it was user error (I loaded the cartridge but didn't roll it right away and then moved the camera around a lot). Just roll a foot right when you pop it in and you should avoid the same issue I had. Otherwise, no issues.

Since you were speaking of the A7SIII/FX3 in your previous thread, my answer applies specifically to those cameras: Both sony cameras have dual gain - effectively this means there are 2 "base" ISOs. There is slightly more noise at 12800 than 800, but not much more. There is significantly less noise at 12800 than at 6400 (base 800). In my experience, it is better to keep the ISO set as close as possible to either 800 or 12800. Then, a gentle overexposure makes a big impact toward reducing perceived noise.

Shutter angle would be nice but speaking of breath - I want that lens focus breathing compensation from the A7IV way more

I'm sorry, I miss-read originally and was thinking A7SIII not A7SII. Nicolas is correct, especially with the mark II. I think it's hazier with the mark III and more so with the FX3. They still have analogue gain of course. But in my experience so far, it's way better to let the camera handle gain and specifically noise reduction when you're more than 2 stops from either base exposure. You may maintain more stops at 800 but if you amplify the noise so much in post that the bottom stops aren't useful, it's a wash... if that make's sense. I've been swamped but I'm hoping to shoot a test this week to demonstrate what I'm describing... or prove myself wrong! We'll see

I feel comfortable using slog3 in any lighting scenario. Gently over-exposing makes a big difference for perceived noise and with the 12800 ISO as an option, I can't imagine a night scene where over-exposing by 1 stop isn't an option

Ah interesting!

My understanding of Cine EI mode is that changing the ISO in camera changes the brightness of the EVF/monitor outputs and adds a metadata tag for post. But the actual ISO change is effectively being done on your computer. So the concepts are very similar - with the Alexa you are baking your choice in on set (with prores) and with the Sony system you are still free to deviate from your on set choice later. I believe this is the case with both raw and non-raw options on the sony cameras. So a slight difference there - which could hurt the Sony cameras performance in the non-raw version of this. I'm anticipating better results with my FX3 when I bake the ISO choice in on set versus shooting at 800 exactly all the time but we will see.

I would certainly hope so! If you crop the top and bottom off a 22mm x 9.47mm image to get a 2.35:1 ratio, your new height is 9.36mm - a reduction in 0.11mm. If you wanted to use the absolute maximum width of your super35 gate, the height of a 2.35:1 frame would be 10.59mm. So in our most extreme use case, the difference is 1.23mm, not 2mm. But no one in their right mind would frame for the exact width of their gate on 35mm which is why most of the 3 perf Penelope frame guides have a width of 24mm even.

FX3 has that Cine EI mode now! Maybe worth switching if you really like that way of handing exposure. The way the Alexa handles ISO (when using the prores log workflow): you are adjusting the post AD conversion processing of the image. When you raise the ISO, you are lifting darker values up to middle gray. When you decrease ISO, you're dropping brighter values down to appear as middle gray. But your highlight and shadow clipping isn't changing because the sensor has innate light gathering properties. The way I like to think about the Alexa is I'm using ISO to choose how many stops above middle gray I have and how many stops below. If you stick at the base of 800, you have roughly 7 up and 7 down. If you increase one stop to 1600, you have 8 up and 6 down. I like to increase my ISO - I like the added texture in the image and I like the camera to behave a bit more like film which has more latitude in the highlights than shadows. If you really get into it, this is a bit of a simplification with the Alexa - there are two gains applied in parallel and recombined in the same frame. So I'm sure there's a little bit more going on under the hood when you increase ISO. I haven't tested my FX3 out since upgrading the firmware but I'm a bit skeptical about the Cine EI mode on that camera. The 10 bit recording plus built in noise reduction could be a bottleneck with the DR. I have a feeling that at the higher ISOs (per base ISO) perform better when you let the camera do the processing. I'll have to shoot some side by sides to confirm though. I suspect the main reason they have added the option for Cine EI mode is to make multi-camera workflows simpler where you're mixing FX3s, FX6s, and FX9s

What's your finishing resolution and what's your budget? The Alexa mini can be pushed quite far if you're happy with a 2k finish. Might also be worth looking at the Venice since it has a 2nd higher gain option that could help exposing for 120fps.

Hi Luisa! Those sorts of color modifying filters like coral, tobacco, etc have definitely fallen out of use with the prevalence of digital color correction. You can either completely recreate those looks or get very close in Davinci resolve. LUTs are really a different category of tool. You could make a "coral" LUT of course, but LUTs are so much more powerful than anything you could with a glass filter. With a LUT you can target specific hues or saturation level or exposure level to really fine tune the image. But what LUTs are really used for is to preview your final image on set. People sell LUTs these days as if they're filters - or worse, as a shortcut to a final image. I'd recommend staying clear of paid LUTs for now and instead try making your own looks in Davinci Resolve. I also wouldn't spend money on those old school filters - but play around with them if you access to them through your school. What camera or cameras do you usually work with?

No matter how many times you say it, the relationship between resolution and refresh doesn't hold between sensor fab processes. The sensor tech is much more important than how big the heat sink is.

You're killing me hahahah As Karim mentioned, the A1 is going to blow your mind. I own an A7RIV. It's slow refresh rate is not due to IBIS, it's a limitation of the circuitry they used on that die process. The A1 is stacked so it can refresh much faster.

This is a frustration of mine as well. I prefer an EVF - the problem I've encountered is everything bar Arri's EVFs and the Sony Venice EVF is that there is just too much latency, especially with aftermarket solutions. Even the Red EVFs aren't all that great. I'm not a huge fan of the sony loupe/screen solution - they're not particularly sharp. But what I can say about the FX6 is I really like the peaking compared to other cameras. So it might work well for your needs. I don't remember the FS7 being good at peaking. And I don't think canon has a similar solution available, just that insanely placed rear EVF on the 300s

Your comment was filled with a lot of wild speculation but this one takes the cake. Those products are for COMPLETELY different use cases, with a host of different priorities. The Sony Venice doesn't have IBIS as well but you forgot to mention that. It's interesting how adverse you are to IBIS distortion. But CMOS rolling shutter is just fine? Heat dissipation per resolution isn't directly correlated, especially between sensor technologies. Just like DR isn't directly correlated with resolution across sensor technologies. The FX3 has a quad bayer sensor for example - it's not all about pixel count.

This is a straw man. The sensor isn't 10mb *because* it has IBIS. There's a whole host of other factors. The FX3 also has a gyro that can be utilized by Catalyst to stabilize in post. Not as convenient as doing it right in Resolve but it has both options. IBIS is a wonderful tool for the right job, results in minimal distortion on focal lengths in the normal-telephoto range, and shouldn't be regarded as an automatic anchor around the neck of sensor technology