Why many says that Alexa has real 11,5 stops and Epic only 5,5 indeed?

[Kemalettin Sert]

This reminds me of:`Windows is better than Macintosh´.

OTOH: Epic has four times the resolution of Alexa. So Epic is four times better than Alexa?

lol so many people saying Red is windows and Arri is OSX..im sick of telling people we should restart the camera again bla bla and all the time they ask me if its running windows in it..

 

[Terry VerHaar]

On a somewhat serious note- is it possible these "experts" or someone along the line in this game of telephone - is confusing the terms "dynamic range" and" latitude?"

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think they are looking at Rec.709 versions, first, and second, they can't count.

Practically speaking, without using HDRx, the Alexa seems to have a stop more highlight info than Epic if both are at 800 ASA. If you want to call that 14 vs. 13, that's up to you, no one counts stops of DR when shooting.

 

[James T Mather]

I was interested to see and finally went to Total Recall yesterday in the cinema - the mix of Paul Cameron, C-series lenses being interesting - and thought the image looked great. Really great. Almost too great if I'm being honest.

One aspect of it I felt was that digital somewhat removes that barrier that film creates - leading to that "distance" that makes the so-called film look a desirable holy grail for digital sensors. I'm talking about image feel here. A kind of film softness. In terms of resolution there is no question that the camera is up to the challenge but in terms of look there is something almost too clean looking about the image in TR - a lack of texture or something. To me it was almost too perfect. I Would love to see this aspect examined in the Dragon sensor. I never quite believed the movie (and trust me, I'm an easy sell in that regard). The art direction, effects and lighting are incredible (props to Paul Cameron) but recently there is something happening in cinema where I find myself observing digitally acquired films as being "actors and a set" as opposed to "these events are really happening". This aspect varies from one digital system to another - assessing what this ingredient is has been preoccupying me recently - is it DR, colour rendition, digital projection, camera gamma curve or dare I say it, too much resolution? (gasp). I realize the pixel counters are going to murder this one but do understand that I mostly shoot Red these days and own 2 Epics. I'm not evangelical about cameras - only pictures.

Ps: I have noticed that using old glass knocks this effect back a lot as does shooting RedGamma 2 as opposed to 3 and generally shooting further down the exposure curve - which is why this surprised me as C-series are quite soft compared with, say, Hawks or E-Series and Cameron is pretty low on the exposure scale. Maybe it's time to drag out those old black pro-mists, or low-cons and start shooting at higher ASA settings to introduce grain. it could be that simple.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I think it is all what you are used to seeing. If you've been watching film for 40 years, it's "comfortable" and "normal." Twenty year olds don't have the same deeply ingrained biases. The film "look" will not be the standard in another twenty tears, any more than there are very many people are left who argue the superiority of vinyl. Film is at the peak of a 100 year evolution. Digital is in its infancy with an unlimited future.

 

[M Most]

I was interested to see and finally went to Total Recall yesterday in the cinema - .....?.but recently there is something happening in cinema where I find myself observing digitally acquired films as being "actors and a set" as opposed to "these events are really happening". This aspect varies from one digital system to another - assessing what this ingredient is has been preoccupying me recently - is it DR, colour rendition, digital projection, camera gamma curve or dare I say it, too much resolution? (gasp). I realize the pixel counters are going to murder this one but do understand that I mostly shoot Red these days and own 2 Epics. I'm not evangelical about cameras - only pictures..

I think some of what you're referring to is that a very large proportion of the "pictures" you're referring to aren't captured by a camera at all. They're CGI/digital compositing creations that never went through a lens and were never captured by a sensor, with the minor exception of some of the elements in those shots Simulations of reality are always just that, simulations. I would venture to say that probably less tha 20% of the images in the picture you're talking about were completely camera originated, and of that 20%, less than half were untouched by visual effects.

Camera judgements should be based on images captured by cameras, not CG renders. The sad truth is that if you're watching large studio pictures, especially sic-fi and genre material, and especially tent pole releases, you're seeing precious little of that.

 

[Mark Phelan]

Sorry guys, I am not a professional in these technical questions, the meter is not in Ukraine or Eastern Europe people are the same in the whole world in video production (besides Taliban maybe, they against movies I just have heard once Alexa is better, ok I think everybody can have their own opinion, then I have heard again Alexa is better from guy from production, who much better professional then me, I haven't contain myself and begun asked a lot of questions and got answer about these true 11,5 and 5,5 stops and I said that much more movies shot on Red whatever.

Alexey, you are doing what the other fellow should have done, research and find the truth. I dare say you are the better professional than he in this regard. We should all seek the truth and avoid half-truths and outright lies. If you are going to judge yourself against someone, make sure the other person is worthy of the comparison.

 

[Brant Hadfield]

James, man, you have exactly crystallized my thoughts on the film vs digital matter. I agree with everything you say here, and often observe the same things. I especially agree with the mating of "older glass" to these cameras. I have 70's 80's era Nikon all manual, metal. There's an alchemy in the coatings that puts my Scarlet's image closer to film than, in my opinion, modern cinema glass on the same cameras. Is it soft? Well, sort of, but not really. Is it warm looking? Yeah. THe same sorts of things you hear thrown around describing film. It's just less cold, and as you describe, when you watch film, you feel you are watching a dream. When you watch perfect, sharp, clean digital, it feels like I am watching a monitor. I have the same reaction as you do. Can't be a coincidence.

But...in the end, what you do with it in post is where the magic can happen. I think the detail in the Red Epic/Scarlet image, combined with a little more noise, is more akin to film, even when down-scaled to 1080. That greater detail is still present in the image in a way it is not with Alexa. That in itself is more like a 4k film scan.

I was interested to see and finally went to Total Recall yesterday in the cinema - the mix of Paul Cameron, C-series lenses being interesting - and thought the image looked great. Really great. Almost too great if I'm being honest.

One aspect of it I felt was that digital somewhat removes that barrier that film creates - leading to that "distance" that makes the so-called film look a desirable holy grail for digital sensors. I'm talking about image feel here. A kind of film softness. In terms of resolution there is no question that the camera is up to the challenge but in terms of look there is something almost too clean looking about the image in TR - a lack of texture or something. To me it was almost too perfect. I Would love to see this aspect examined in the Dragon sensor. I never quite believed the movie (and trust me, I'm an easy sell in that regard). The art direction, effects and lighting are incredible (props to Paul Cameron) but recently there is something happening in cinema where I find myself observing digitally acquired films as being "actors and a set" as opposed to "these events are really happening". This aspect varies from one digital system to another - assessing what this ingredient is has been preoccupying me recently - is it DR, colour rendition, digital projection, camera gamma curve or dare I say it, too much resolution? (gasp). I realize the pixel counters are going to murder this one but do understand that I mostly shoot Red these days and own 2 Epics. I'm not evangelical about cameras - only pictures.

Ps: I have noticed that using old glass knocks this effect back a lot as does shooting RedGamma 2 as opposed to 3 and generally shooting further down the exposure curve - which is why this surprised me as C-series are quite soft compared with, say, Hawks or E-Series and Cameron is pretty low on the exposure scale. Maybe it's time to drag out those old black pro-mists, or low-cons and start shooting at higher ASA settings to introduce grain. it could be that simple.

 

[James T Mather]

Nope, I'm referring to close ups in the apartment, the rebel's lair and in the closed Recall set. So not a huge amount of vfx there. It's also something I observed whilst shooting a feature two years ago called Lockout - so I have some personal experience with digital and Anamorphics (I own 2 Epics, a Red and a set of red primes so it's safe to assume I'm invested in digital). I'm not trying to diss Red or Arri for that matter but address something that I feel is important. This is a forum for discussion and debate - drawing to attention our concerns is reasonable otherwise it's not a forum. Are we not encouraged to raise our thoughts - if only to push digital a little harder, to make it better? Or are we only allowed to cheer for it and question the validity of people who question it? The alternative then is to have a non-public forum where real thoughts can be shared without fear of being shouted down.

If I may also suggest telling people that they've simply got to get used to something is not a good enough answer - if so, why not shoot on an iPhone and claim that your bias is what makes you question the pictures it produces as younger people are used to it? This is a non-answer as far as I can see.

It could be bias - more than likely - but what is cinematography and directing other than bias put into actions. Why choose one camera over another, one lens over another, one lighting scheme over another if not bias? Don't get me wrong, I think digital acquisition is great but sometimes a little too zingy at times for my taste- this becomes very pronounced with too-sharp glass and grainless images.

Dragon is coming out soon - I am looking forward to the new opportunities it brings. I am asking these questions here in the hope that they will be considered in the new sensor. Or we can simply decry it as one man's bias. I'm not anti-digital. I'm pro-pictures. We all want them to be the best they can be.

 

[James T Mather]

James, man, you have exactly crystallized my thoughts on the film vs digital matter. I agree with everything you say here, and often observe the same things. I especially agree with the mating of "older glass" to these cameras. I have 70's 80's era Nikon all manual, metal. There's an alchemy in the coatings that puts my Scarlet's image closer to film than, in my opinion, modern cinema glass on the same cameras. Is it soft? Well, sort of, but not really. Is it warm looking? Yeah. THe same sorts of things you hear thrown around describing film. It's just less cold, and as you describe, when you watch film, you feel you are watching a dream. When you watch perfect, sharp, clean digital, it feels like I am watching a monitor. I have the same reaction as you do. Can't be a coincidence.

But...in the end, what you do with it in post is where the magic can happen. I think the detail in the Red Epic/Scarlet image, combined with a little more noise, is more akin to film, even when down-scaled to 1080. That greater detail is still present in the image in a way it is not with Alexa. That in itself is more like a 4k film scan.

Thanks Brant. I'm not trying to agitate for it's own sake but ask some questions as to why I find myself responding to some images this way. In case this is seen as pro-this or anti-that, it's not. I've shot the Alexa and had some issues with it, as I have with the Genesis, the F3, the phantom, the 5d, film etc. No system is perfect.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I was interested to see and finally went to Total Recall yesterday in the cinema - the mix of Paul Cameron, C-series lenses being interesting - and thought the image looked great. Really great. Almost too great if I'm being honest.

One aspect of it I felt was that digital somewhat removes that barrier that film creates - leading to that "distance" that makes the so-called film look a desirable holy grail for digital sensors. I'm talking about image feel here. A kind of film softness. In terms of resolution there is no question that the camera is up to the challenge but in terms of look there is something almost too clean looking about the image in TR - a lack of texture or something. To me it was almost too perfect. I Would love to see this aspect examined in the Dragon sensor. I never quite believed the movie (and trust me, I'm an easy sell in that regard). The art direction, effects and lighting are incredible (props to Paul Cameron) but recently there is something happening in cinema where I find myself observing digitally acquired films as being "actors and a set" as opposed to "these events are really happening". This aspect varies from one digital system to another - assessing what this ingredient is has been preoccupying me recently - is it DR, colour rendition, digital projection, camera gamma curve or dare I say it, too much resolution? (gasp). I realize the pixel counters are going to murder this one but do understand that I mostly shoot Red these days and own 2 Epics. I'm not evangelical about cameras - only pictures.

Ps: I have noticed that using old glass knocks this effect back a lot as does shooting RedGamma 2 as opposed to 3 and generally shooting further down the exposure curve - which is why this surprised me as C-series are quite soft compared with, say, Hawks or E-Series and Cameron is pretty low on the exposure scale. Maybe it's time to drag out those old black pro-mists, or low-cons and start shooting at higher ASA settings to introduce grain. it could be that simple.

I think there is a lot to what you're saying. I remember reading in America Cinematographer last month about The Amazing Spiderman, and the film makers were SHOCKED at how clean the Epic was. Ordinarily, the VFX renders our CLEANER than film, and so the VFX needs to have GRAIN added to match the film stock. However, on Spiderman, the EPIC was SO CLEAN, the VFX ended up looking TOO NOISY!!! They had to spend EXTRA TIME re-rendering all VFX at a much cleaner compression to match the EPIC.

Which I'm not saying is a bad thing. But I agree, to get that more "filmic" look, older glass and diffusion have a great way of feeding the sensor a wonderful organic starting point. But again, opinions are like assholes, and everyone's got one. What works for person A, may not work for person B. Everyone needs to find their own approach to getting what they want out of this remarkable RAW workflow.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

...the EPIC was SO CLEAN, the VFX ended up looking TOO NOISY!!! They had to spend EXTRA TIME re-rendering all VFX at a much cleaner compression to match the EPIC.
Everyone needs to find their own approach to getting what they want out of this remarkable RAW workflow.

Did you say clean?

5203 50D Kodak. It also proudly touts the world’s finest film grain to ensure a pristine, clean image that is full of color and detail...

Clean image was a as selling argument for Kodak, how strange it became a bad word...

I love to shoot at 1600 asa as I find it the sweet spot for the Epic to have some natural texture in the picture (natural = inherent to the camera system). It's perhaps an estetical mannerism (or a trend?) but it breaks wonderfully the so called "clean digital look" (and adds one stop in the highlights fall off).


Pat

 

[Dave Blackham]

Clean Epic is. One reason why we are tending to select glass with character just to add little something back in to the image. It seems the character of lenses is much more apparent with the very clean images these cameras produce.

 

[R. Gonzales]

OMG... here we go again.

What Toia said.

 

[Tom Gleeson]

While the initial claim of Alexa DR advantage is just stupid and David Mullens observation is way more accurate this is an important point that Alexa does have a DR advantage over the Epic. Combine this with the simplistic workflow and Alexa dominates the TVC and TV drama markets here in Australia. The resolution advantage convinces many feature productions across to Epic but the resolution advantage is less convincing to others.
If Red really wants to kick Arri's butt it needs the Pro Res module and that Dragon chip available ASAP as you can be assured Arri is not standing still.

NB Please keep future modules small and lightweight or we end up with a camera that may as well be an Alexa

 

[Jason Comparetto]

+1 for Toia

 

[David Mullen ASC]

While the initial claim of Alexa DR advantage is just stupid and David Mullens observation is way more accurate this is an important point that Alexa does have a DR advantage over the Epic. Combine this with the simplistic workflow and Alexa dominates the TVC and TV drama markets here in Australia. The resolution advantage convinces many feature productions across to Epic but the resolution advantage is less convincing to others.

Keep in mind that I said it was about a stop difference without HDRx, which is not all that significant except in the extreme highlights -- in practical shooting, either camera would be considered to have a wide dynamic range and decent latitude.

 

[Marc Wielage]

One aspect of it I felt was that digital somewhat removes that barrier that film creates - leading to that "distance" that makes the so-called film look a desirable holy grail for digital sensors. I'm talking about image feel here. A kind of film softness. In terms of resolution there is no question that the camera is up to the challenge but in terms of look there is something almost too clean looking about the image in TR - a lack of texture or something. To me it was almost too perfect.

They can always make a decision to globally add some degree of digitally-sampled grain as a final step in the final rendered output. Grain management is still necessary just to keep shots looking similar, particularly when all-digital, partly-digital, or all-life shots are cut back to back.

If it's softness you want, the DP can always add diffusion during production or add some kind of defocus effect in color correction. Many, many, many times, I've dealt with close-up shots involving "actors of a certain age," and remarked that sharpness is not our friend. We've had to defocus skin tones just to get bags under the eyes, worry-lines, and forehead wrinkles under control. No harm in that.

It's just as valid for a filmmaker to say "I want no texture in my film" or to say "I want kind of a grainy texture throughout my film." The upcoming horror/thriller House at the End of the Street was shot very economically on 2-perf 35mm negative, and the director specifically told me, "it's because I wanted that kind of grainy texture like classic horror films." It's a perfectly valid opinion, and it works fine for that project.

 

[Jonas Nyström]

Well, all of above said, I have a strong feeling more Dps shooting with Alexa than Epic for the moment. Now when you also have the possibility of shoot anamorphic on the Alexa. Why?

 

[RivaiC]

This is call black campaign ! Guys..we are creative people, please dont become shitty politician. Alexa has advantages, so does EPIC. but claiming EPIC is 5.5 stop, i seriously cant stop laughing. Whoever said this, should shoot his work on blackberry or iphone. Sorry, cant resist.

40% of the producer around here who had extreme bad experience with Alexa swear for their life, they wont use Alexa anymore. We did rescue their project in post. But the damage has been done. I have seen and work with Alexa footage a lot and it is good, but EPIC is better.

Rivai