Panasonic going towards 8K to the masses...

[L. Langer]

I own a ton of Sony Blu-Rays and the irony with that statement is that Sony Pictures and their Stage 6 subsidiary shat out a ton of product that was shot entirely on RED cameras or Panavision Genesis or 35mm, instead of using their own CineAlta cameras. After Earth and Only The Brave are the only two Sony productions I can think of - in recent times - that were primarily Sony CineAlta, since the days of Sony being dominant around the time of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD's format war. For a company that has been known to - and they get much grief for it - aggressively use their films to advertise Sony's consumer products - occasionally professional ones too - by having them as "props" in their productions, they sure haven't had much interest in using Sony cameras to make said productions.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

FWIW, if you look into the post production of After Earth I think you'll quickly discern why F65 CineAlta is not the most popular capture system for features. Not to mention the size, power demand, etc...

Cheers - #19

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Then you're talking about what exactly? Because from linear there's just a 3x3 and a curve to LogC. So where's the magic?

Magic is everywhere.

Though commonly overlooked by the Ego.


When anyone with a healthy set of eyes, at least mid-level experience, sensibility and criteria sees a properly shot and post produced Alexa image, he intuitively sees what he interprets as a "film look", which he does not typically see with other cameras. What he actually sees are some image properties from film and some which are unlike those coming from typical digital acquisition. So he generally connotes film because of two dominant points of reference, one of which seems closer.

"Like film" was from the early days of digital, everything ranging from 24p motion cadence, crushed image, desaturated image, specifically rich image, specifically toned image, pleasing highlights image, softer image, sharper image, grainy image...basically multiple image aspects investigated by the Creatives, faced with potentials of new content acquisition and post production tools, image aspects which were "not like digital". Intuitively and passionately moving away from the sterile and soulless bag of bits, inferior to adequately and more naturally depict the scene.

Image aspects which in Alexa's case dominantly leave this "film like" impression can be summed up to:

1) Texture
2) Dynamic range
3) Color performance

There is also motion rendition, but less effective and the fact that Alexa material mostly origins from higher production levels and proper post, and generally does not occupate youtube with shots of someone's back yard lit by a mid-noon Sun or underexposed shots of one's basement lit by a lamp from Home Depot. And while more experienced and less biased may perceive the good and the bad with improper tool usage, less experienced and more biased are likely to perceive only the bad. And dramatize or praise, depending on bias.
And Arri is unlikely to send it over for testing for an online article. At least not without some credentials and level of experience.

Texture is defined by:

- pixel size and spatial quantizing resolution
- OLPF
- noise characteristics
- image processing

Alexa image acuity is closest to 35 mm film. Not the texture acuity, which reaches molecular levels, but recorded scene acuity.

Dynamic range Alexa achieves with huge saturation capacity and low read noise combined with dual gain structure. Simplified. Besides the basic numerical part, intelligible by an 8 y.o. through a one paragraph online article and basic math skills, how it actually does that and how the highlights behave is unique. The interpretation of which requires some level of experience in either acquisition or post.


Colour performance is, besides CFA properties, mostly defined by image processing. Which depends on what is coming down the pipe quantized from usable DR. Color processing determines color consistency, color separation, richness and harmony. How the colours behave throughout the signal range, put throughout the exposure range.

The combination of all those factors also defines micro contrast throughout the signal range and ultimately how the imagery will behave in post production image manipulation.



The final image look depends on:

1) Sensor light gathering color art/science
2) Camera raw signal processing color art/science - including base color signal shaping
3) Transformative color art/science - viewing/delivery referred signal shaping
4) Grading color art/science - creative context referred signal shaping


...


Linear/log defines how the recorded and processed image is mapped through luminance, matrix how the processed colors are mapped to basic colour targets.


Neither defines nor carries the image performance of the camera and applying them to a linearized image from another camera will not emulate the image performance of a camera, it will only re-map what is already pre-defined by the original camera's acquisition and signal processing properties.

No, you convinced me with your overwhelming proof.

Forcing something onto someone else's psyche is generally a parade of arrogance and mental tyranny.
Though conditioned as acceptable choice in the current OS.


Proof is in the pudding.
Not in its plate.

 

[Steven Abrams]

Though often overlooked by the Ego.

Forcing something onto someone else's psyche is generally a parade of arrogance and mental tyranny.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

You guys:

.