Dragon poll

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Not surprised about his opinion, but i'm not surprised either that it's how the camera threats highlights that is on his mind, not the amount of K's or night-vision.

 

[Maz Mawlawi]

Over 60% of respondents want even more low-light sensitivity??? Do you all shoot in coal mines at midnight? Do you somehow think lighting is just for enough exposure, rather than painting the scene???

Maybe you just enjoy selecting, cleaning, and inserting giant ND filters.

One more point; resolution is not the holy grail. Dynamic range is.

OK, opinions vary and that's why they have so many flavors at the ice cream store, but Red has only one flavor (sensor "ISO").

Please, why do we need higher ISO??? 800 is a pretty good compromise.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Advantage of even more low light capability is to be able to use smaller less powerful lights to light wide scenes etc... (Especially night scenes with F2.8 lenses)

 

[Jack Smith]

1. built in ND
2. Global shutter
3. FF35 and MF sensor size
4. Reduce fan noise

 

[Timur Civan]

I chose pick your poison.

I prefer a cleaner chip, so I can rate higher, and get better highlight handling and dynamic range. Sensitivity is a by product. Being able to set the grey point with a 6 below, 7 above for a clean 14 stops would be best. The current highlight handling is beautiful, but having that one last stop makes all the difference. That's seeing the filament in the bulb, seeing the frosted glass of the sconce, seeing the disc of the sun in sunsets, and the headlights of cars in low light scenes.

Those little details are the oomph the Alexa is famous for. The red can do it, but you have to rate at 1600/2000ISO, and the current camera is just a tad grainy at that range.

 

[James Falco]

Non of the above.

I am just waiting for a physically bigger sensor. Where is 645, S35 is so the past.
I am not hungry for pixel size, I crave sensor size, thats what changes the game, the rest is all the same.

Cheers. ///

 

[Ryan Lalonde]

blank

 

[Paul Ellington]

I hope I made Gunleik and Peter Lyons Collister ASC Proud... I chose...

1) Good Fidelity

2) Epic is already fucking Epic.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

But if he was shooting 400, it is quite easy to overexpose...

Not questioning his competence, of course. Just stating the obvious...

And HDRx would have been a not so illogical choise, I guess.

 

[Rocco Schult]

"Where is 645, S35 is so the past."

Second that.

Besides:

- better skin tones, eventually. REDcolor3 made it better, but still miles from ideal.
- true 800 iso. enough. not pushed up 320/400/640 at best.
I don't care about 2000ISO, but surely market and marketing does. I think the market demands it. Too many people in the dark and with no understanding what 50 or 100 ASA is or once was. It was used, even if it sounds unbelievable. It was called film and it worked. So make the 800 clean, true and evenly exposed over the channels, that will be a milestone.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

Ivan's wishlist:

- 2 native ISO settings that hold the same highlight protection and grain structure. 2000ISO for regular shooting, 80ISO for day shooting.
- Improved skintone rendition. Fix the colour matrix. Green hue begone.
- Global shutter so photos or strobes don't give me useless frames.

 

[James Sielaff]

Quite delberate, have to admit...
I cannot feel oldchool, as RED was my way into highend productions... That'd be too absurd!
But still the ability to shape light was and is a huge part of what I consider photography. Not the ability to do stuff without light.

But this is one of the many and funny anachronisms of life!

There is usually too much light in most scenes any way. I'd rather work with flags than ultra bright hot lights. That said, I believe we should have two sensors. So, an Epic with lowlight (the high iso will additionally help with the slomo) and a scarlet with better DR and smoother highlights, but native 400 iso, or less.

That was the idea behind brains, wasn't it??? Options???

 

[Bobby Farokhzad]

in the following order:
1) global shutter
2) better low light sensitivity
3) better dynamic range
4) expander color gamut
If this were to happen it would not only put an end to the Epic Alexa debate, but would once and for all end the 35mm debate as well.
Coming from the video world I can say that ND filters would definitely be an added bonus but I for one can live without them.

 

[Alonzo Von Threet]

I want high frame rates but I also want lowlight I don't want to compromise quality For the Scarlet

 

[James Sielaff]

You want a one size fits all sensor? Can it be done by today's technology? Idk, I dislike stacking ND, and I dislike the highlights on the MX, and I would lke cleaner low light, and and and. I would much rather the bodies continue to drop in price, and sensor options expand to three: 1. high speed (15+stops DR native is possible?) 2. high Latitude and color fidelity 3. Black and White (which would probably just be the no 2 sensor without a bayer filter)

 

[Radim Schreiber]

lower noise floor, greater dynamic range and higher resolution... but also better heat dissipation so the fan doesn't have to run so loud.

 

[Leo Ticheli]

I was about to post the same suggestion! I wish there was an easy way to change just the sensor, and at a cost well below the entire brain. I'd like to see low ISO sensor color balanced for day exteriors, perhaps ISO 80, a studio sensor, say 320 balanced for tungsten, and one with high ISO for shooting at high frame rates. The Black and White is a cool idea, but very limited in it's application.

I have no idea how much the sensors would cost, and if all would work with the same electronics set, but how cool would it be if they were only a couple grand each; then it really would be like selecting film stocks. Ah, the good old days!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Björn Benckert]

I was about to post the same suggestion! I wish there was an easy way to change just the sensor, and at a cost well below the entire brain. I'd like to see low ISO sensor color balanced for day exteriors, perhaps ISO 80, a studio sensor, say 320 balanced for tungsten, and one with high ISO for shooting at high frame rates. The Black and White is a cool idea, but very limited in it's application.

I have no idea how much the sensors would cost, and if all would work with the same electronics set, but how cool would it be if they were only a couple grand each; then it really would be like selecting film stocks. Ah, the good old days!

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

I think, filters infront of sensor / behind lens would be a financially a better option than removing the whole sensor... Somebody made such devices for the alexa. A few different Hot mirror ND and a clear glas. The clear glass was used for protection and keeping back focus the same as when shooting with any of the other filters.. I think it was panavision alexas that had this feature but I might be mistaken.

 

[Ivan Kovax]

adjusting the voltage to the chip would be the way to do it. Canon cameras do it, can't see why an EPic can't. Though I am not an engineer, so it is probably harder than I am making it out to be.

The New Aaton does it in an innovative way via its circular shutter.

 

[Jon MIchael Puntervold]

Non of the above.

I am just waiting for a physically bigger sensor. Where is 645, S35 is so the past.
I am not hungry for pixel size, I crave sensor size, thats what changes the game, the rest is all the same.

Cheers. ///

Why?

 

[James Sielaff]

Why?

Look at medium format photography vs aps-c/h digital photographry. Now ignore the film vs digital look, and observe the way the images can be composed. Though, I really cannot imagine trying to focus with a 645 camera. FF35 is difficult enough. But one day I do look forward to medium format video. Maybe when ISO performance gets a touch better, and then stopping further down is possible when needed.

s35 is not dead. it is one of the more versatile video frame sizes.