PDA

View Full Version : Alexa, BMCC, & C500 comparison



Trevor Roach
12-18-2012, 01:56 PM
Noticed this on Twitter earlier, very interesting the differences between the 3 cameras. Haven't tried playing with the different clips yet, but might provide some insight on how much each camera can recover in post:

http://www.cinematography.net/Alexa-BMCC-C500-December-2012.html

Sage
12-18-2012, 02:27 PM
The Alexa and Bmcc are looking quite good there. Canon not so much..

Bmcc has a very rich color science. The olpf diffusion on Alexa is very pretty though.

Trevor Roach
12-18-2012, 02:39 PM
I agree, Canon isn't very nice in this comparison. Granted, I still think the C500 can provide a very beautiful image, just at least in this test it looks nasty blown out compared to the BMMC and especially the Alexa.

I will also say, though, you can see what John and others say about the BMCC being hungry for light. I think that's where the C500 sensor's better low-light comes into play.

Sage
12-18-2012, 02:44 PM
I agree, Canon isn't very nice in this comparison. Granted, I still think the C500 can provide a very beautiful image, just at least in this test it looks nasty blown out compared to the BMMC and especially the Alexa.

I will also say, though, you can see what John and others say about the BMCC being hungry for light. I think that's where the C500 sensor's better low-light comes into play.

Yes, and one thing that remains quite striking at a quick glance is the entire dynamic range of the Alexa from top to bottom is astounding.

Kholi
12-18-2012, 02:48 PM
Yeah, Blackmagic does love light but to be honest there seems to be a sacrifice with cameras that are okay with seeing in the dark. Color and performance in well lit scenarios. FS100/700, C300/500... none of those really get close to Alexa and Blackmagic's color nor their overall IQ when there is light.

It's plenty good in lowlight, though. One factor that's never spoken is how color and lowlight go together. What's the use in having a camera that can net a lowlight image if the color isn't decent?

I've been able to pull GREAT skin out of stuff under nasty street lamps, or generally very underexposed images (accidentally and purposely). That's important.

rick.lang
12-18-2012, 03:47 PM
Noticed this on Twitter earlier, very interesting the differences between the 3 cameras. Haven't tried playing with the different clips yet, but might provide some insight on how much each camera can recover in post:

http://www.cinematography.net/Alexa-BMCC-C500-December-2012.html

And that site also compares the Alexa to the Epic and the F65. Interesting to do these comparisons especially if you have the choice to rent any camera and then match the camera strengths to the scene's requirements. Still these exposure tests don't tell the complete story as the 'best grade' you might get from those varying exposures. My point is that it's clear Alexa is a winner on the exposure latitude tests, but I'll bet that several of the cameras will still grade beautifully in most situations, you just might be a bit more careful with your exposure on most cameras but it looks like you could throw away your exposure meter when using the Alexa! :cool:

Geoffrey C. Albach
12-18-2012, 03:53 PM
What is amazing is the fact that the BMC actual stands with them! I think the Alexa body cap is 3 grand. ;)

Trevor Roach
12-18-2012, 04:02 PM
What is amazing is the fact that the BMC actual stands with them! I think the Alexa body cap is 3 grand. ;)

I agree! Anybody who expected the BMCC to match the Alexa is kidding themselves, but for $3,000 this camera is very impressive. I do agree with Rick as well, that if you work an individual camera's strength, you should get a wonderful image out of all of them. =)

Andrew
12-18-2012, 04:47 PM
One factor that's never spoken is how color and lowlight go together. What's the use in having a camera that can net a lowlight image if the color isn't decent?



This is key. The BMC may not be a low light monster like we've gotten used to. No cranking it up to iso 12,800 for no light shooting, but the lowlight images I've seen look so much nicer than Canon high iso stuff. Like you say, you're getting great color and you're also getting great dynamic range. The dynamic range of an hdslr after the iso has been cranked up is very low.

Frank Glencairn
12-18-2012, 04:52 PM
Don't want to rain on the parade, but something odd seems to go on here.

The BMC did not react, the way I expect it.
When you look at the first pictures, the Alexa seems to clip more than the BMC.
As much as I love my camera, but no way.

Also sentences like that:


The DPX's were created in Resolve using flat settings for each camera.
The lighting was varying in the background and the frames were not shot cincurrently.

Don't build confidence in me. "Using the flat settings for each camera" What does that mean?
Did they use the metadate, the film LUT, did they check the "recover highlights", did they bring the highlights down?

In an other raw test, they set the BMC to ISO 200 - excuse me, but should a tester not know, that the ISO settings in raw is just metadata?

From what I see there and from my experience, the BMC is underexposed and the DNGs are not properly "developed" in Resolve.

Andrew
12-18-2012, 05:01 PM
Don't want to rain on the parade, but something odd seems to go on here.

The BMC did not react, the way I expect it.
When you look at the first pictures, the Alexa seems to clip more than the BMC.
As much as I love my camera, but no way.

Also sentences like that:



Don't build confidence in me. "Using the flat settings for each camera" What does that mean?
Did they use the metadate, the film LUT, did they check the "recover highlights", did they bring the highlights down?

In an other raw test, they set the BMC to ISO 200 - excuse me, but should a tester not know, that the ISO settings in raw is just metadata?

From what I see there and from my experience, the BMC is underexposed and the DNGs are not properly "developed" in Resolve.

Interesting. I think sometimes testers do damage by trying to level the playing field instead of just trying to get the best out of each format in a way that works best for that format. I guess it's hard to do that and remain purely technical or something.

dustylense
12-18-2012, 05:21 PM
shot by students: enough said...

morgan_moore
12-19-2012, 01:49 AM
This is an expensive workshop So the students are not students. But that doesn't make them right..

Andi1
12-19-2012, 03:28 AM
Don't want to rain on the parade, but something odd seems to go on here.

The BMC did not react, the way I expect it.
When you look at the first pictures, the Alexa seems to clip more than the BMC.
As much as I love my camera, but no way.

Also sentences like that:



Don't build confidence in me. "Using the flat settings for each camera" What does that mean?
Did they use the metadate, the film LUT, did they check the "recover highlights", did they bring the highlights down?

In an other raw test, they set the BMC to ISO 200 - excuse me, but should a tester not know, that the ISO settings in raw is just metadata?
From what I see there and from my experience, the BMC is underexposed and the DNGs are not properly "developed" in Resolve.


Thats exactly what i wanted to write. Somehow the Flat-Profile of the BMCC is to contrasty and not as flat as the other raw images ive seen.
200ASA also confused me. That guy isnt too familiar with the camera or so it seems..

Maybe Mr.Brawley can make a fair side-by-side! But he's a busy cinematographer.. maybe thats too much what im asking for :)

Ian
12-19-2012, 09:30 AM
Alexa is so so so good.

imdjay
12-19-2012, 04:29 PM
amazing how people marvel at tests which clearly state they were shot by students, and with practically ZERO information on how they shot them

Trevor Roach
12-19-2012, 06:38 PM
amazing how people marvel at tests which clearly state they were shot by students, and with practically ZERO information on how they shot them

I'm not "marveling" at anything. Even of the test of flawed, I just posted this link for the sake of discussion. I felt it could still provide insight into all the cameras in some way. Sorry to upset you :/

imdjay
12-19-2012, 06:41 PM
wasn't upset, nor identifying you as who i was referring to. Your post was fine, but several posts taking it far too much as a viable concrete comparison

maybe i'm reading between too many lines...

Trevor Roach
12-19-2012, 08:04 PM
I understand, no worries. I agree it's not a definitive "shoot out" or anything. Thought people were getting upset with me posting a flawed comparison between 3 cameras. But, I get what you're saying :)

I think we all can agree though based on these test, the students had the most difficulty with the C500 hahah