1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,120
This is one of those videos that we end up making almost entirely by accident.

2
00:00:04,120 --> 00:00:08,120
Meet the Alexa 35 on Ari's website.

3
00:00:08,120 --> 00:00:12,800
They brag that most big productions are shot on Ari.

4
00:00:12,800 --> 00:00:17,600
I'm not gonna lie, I have a hard time figuring out exactly how this fits in Ari's lineup.

5
00:00:17,600 --> 00:00:21,680
You've got the 35, which is a $70,000 camera,

6
00:00:21,680 --> 00:00:24,880
and that's before you buy any kind of rig for it,

7
00:00:24,880 --> 00:00:29,120
a follow focus, a flippin' lens, or a power distribution unit.

8
00:00:29,120 --> 00:00:34,400
It costs $4,000 less than the Mini LF, which uses their old sensor technology,

9
00:00:34,400 --> 00:00:39,200
but the Mini LF is not going away, and in fact may still continue to be used for years to come.

10
00:00:39,200 --> 00:00:45,180
Yes, for a while, probably. Yeah, but why? Because Ari's sensors are still the best,

11
00:00:45,180 --> 00:00:49,760
and they've been using basically the same sensor for 13 years.

12
00:00:49,760 --> 00:00:54,520
Or sensors. So here's the thing, with the Alexa 35,

13
00:00:54,520 --> 00:00:59,760
we get one of their brand new sensor, whose speeds and feeds include things like 17 stops

14
00:00:59,760 --> 00:01:04,640
of dynamic range, which is basically the difference between the highest highlight and the lowest low light

15
00:01:04,640 --> 00:01:09,240
that you can capture, and then recover detail from when you're working on your production.

16
00:01:09,240 --> 00:01:12,560
It's Super 35, which is very standard for cinema cameras.

17
00:01:12,560 --> 00:01:15,960
It's got a 4.6K sensor up from 3.4.

18
00:01:15,960 --> 00:01:20,020
Netflix certification. Exactly, and it's got better color science

19
00:01:20,020 --> 00:01:25,300
using the latest Ari reveal. And you can see on this chart that it has better red reproduction.

20
00:01:25,300 --> 00:01:30,460
And that would be really important for things like skin tones, for example, because there's a lot of blood under skin.

21
00:01:31,460 --> 00:01:36,740
We're very pink. None of which answers my questions about why we would continue to use the rest of Ari's lineup

22
00:01:36,740 --> 00:01:41,820
when this has a higher resolution sensor with better dynamic range and better color science.

23
00:01:41,820 --> 00:01:45,220
And that's where things get really tricky and magical.

24
00:01:45,220 --> 00:01:48,500
So we brought along a mini LF.

25
00:01:48,500 --> 00:01:52,820
This uses the old sensor. It costs $4,000 more,

26
00:01:52,820 --> 00:01:56,820
and that's because it uses two of the old sensor.

27
00:01:56,820 --> 00:02:02,140
So instead of being like this, they take it, they go like this, and they put two of them,

28
00:02:02,140 --> 00:02:06,100
and their top tier camera actually uses... Three of them.

29
00:02:06,100 --> 00:02:09,940
And that gives us the equivalent of, you were saying about IMAX?

30
00:02:09,940 --> 00:02:15,540
Just a little bit less. So IMAX is 70 mil. This is 65, but it's even not really quite 65.

31
00:02:15,540 --> 00:02:18,980
It's about 6K resolution. So who is this actually for then?

32
00:02:18,980 --> 00:02:22,540
Because if I'm shooting a feature, I'm shooting on an Alexa 65,

33
00:02:22,940 --> 00:02:26,860
with the three sensors, which is rental only, by the way. You cannot even buy them.

34
00:02:26,860 --> 00:02:30,740
I can't quote you a price. But then if I'm shooting a documentary or something,

35
00:02:30,740 --> 00:02:34,940
I want the compactness of the mini, especially because I've got two of those old sensors.

36
00:02:34,940 --> 00:02:38,020
So the image quality should be like, pretty similar.

37
00:02:38,020 --> 00:02:41,580
Are you asking why I would use the 35 over the mini? Yes.

38
00:02:42,460 --> 00:02:47,100
The new sensor and better color science. Is the IO similar, or does it have...

39
00:02:47,100 --> 00:02:50,100
Very, very similar. Okay, so you've got Ethernet,

40
00:02:50,100 --> 00:02:54,020
which is for metadata for virtual productions. If you're shooting something like the Mandalorian,

41
00:02:54,020 --> 00:02:57,940
you might want to get data off of the camera in real time while you're shooting.

42
00:02:57,940 --> 00:03:01,340
They've got, okay, audio in.

43
00:03:01,340 --> 00:03:06,180
You would not typically use the audio in on a camera like this other than maybe documentary.

44
00:03:06,180 --> 00:03:09,620
Maybe documentary. Even then you'd have a sound guy. And you've got a baller documentary

45
00:03:09,620 --> 00:03:14,140
if you're shooting on something like this. And yet you don't have a sound guy.

46
00:03:14,140 --> 00:03:18,700
So scratch audio, essentially. Oh, it also has scratch audio mics in the front.

47
00:03:18,740 --> 00:03:22,860
But hey, you brought up a really good point. You could be a hundred feet away from your subject

48
00:03:22,860 --> 00:03:27,060
with a camera like this. Those aren't gonna do anything to help you sync up.

49
00:03:27,060 --> 00:03:30,860
Speaking of syncing, you've got timecode as well as syncing.

50
00:03:30,860 --> 00:03:35,460
So this works more on pulses. And timecode allows you to kind of like,

51
00:03:35,460 --> 00:03:38,700
before the mission, you set your watches

52
00:03:38,700 --> 00:03:42,420
and then ensure that all of your footage is perfectly synchronized for the editor.

53
00:03:42,420 --> 00:03:46,060
You've got 12 volt power out. This is very, very limited.

54
00:03:46,060 --> 00:03:49,540
Really, you're gonna want an add-on part like this. Yeah, just like red.

55
00:03:49,540 --> 00:03:53,620
Remember that unboxing a while back when I bought the reds and then realized

56
00:03:53,620 --> 00:03:56,740
that was like a third of the total cost of the ecosystem?

57
00:03:58,060 --> 00:04:01,780
Ari's got you there, too. So this guy will do 24 volt out

58
00:04:01,780 --> 00:04:07,100
to six different peripheral devices, whether it's that aforementioned audio module

59
00:04:07,100 --> 00:04:10,660
or, I mean, what else would you run? External displays.

60
00:04:10,660 --> 00:04:15,460
Oh, you can connect tons of displays to this thing. So you've got the built-in electronic viewfinder.

61
00:04:15,460 --> 00:04:19,500
You've got the built-in display. And then you can do two more SDI displays

62
00:04:19,500 --> 00:04:25,500
for all the various stakeholders who might wanna be watching what the operator is shooting.

63
00:04:25,500 --> 00:04:28,780
This is cool. You've also have an SDI in.

64
00:04:28,780 --> 00:04:33,300
So if I, the operator of this camera, wanted to have a little picture-in-picture

65
00:04:33,300 --> 00:04:37,660
of what someone else is shooting on a B cam, I could totally do that, too.

66
00:04:37,660 --> 00:04:41,140
And I guess if we were to summarize why this,

67
00:04:41,140 --> 00:04:45,180
it comes down to versatility? When you hit this level of production,

68
00:04:45,180 --> 00:04:49,220
resolution isn't king. It really comes down to, when I bring this-

69
00:04:49,220 --> 00:04:50,060
Sackilage.

70
00:04:52,300 --> 00:04:56,540
In fact, when you get to too high of a resolution, it can counter, is counterproductive

71
00:04:56,540 --> 00:05:00,380
in terms of image quality. We experienced that with- Just like when you go over 24 frames per second.

72
00:05:00,380 --> 00:05:03,740
Yeah, exactly. Please drop the frame rate of this video down to 24,

73
00:05:03,740 --> 00:05:06,420
maybe 12. Are we shooting at 24? No, no.

74
00:05:07,620 --> 00:05:12,980
It wouldn't even surprise me with you guys. Back to why resolution can actually be detrimental

75
00:05:12,980 --> 00:05:18,220
to image quality. When you think about it, the higher resolution, the smaller each photo site is.

76
00:05:18,220 --> 00:05:21,820
Right, because there's a limit to how big you can make the sensor. Exactly.

77
00:05:21,820 --> 00:05:26,500
Theoretically, you could manufacture a sensor that's this big, and your yields might be

78
00:05:26,500 --> 00:05:29,980
one out of every 100,000 that you try to fab.

79
00:05:29,980 --> 00:05:33,780
And there would be no lenses made for that size. So that's actually one of the reasons

80
00:05:33,780 --> 00:05:37,420
you would choose the 35 over the mini, is this is a larger sensor,

81
00:05:37,420 --> 00:05:41,700
so lens compatibility is less good. There's a ton of lenses that can work at this,

82
00:05:41,700 --> 00:05:45,620
but if you go back decades, Super 35 is much more standard.

83
00:05:45,620 --> 00:05:48,700
Right, so there's more to lens compatibility than just the mount.

84
00:05:48,700 --> 00:05:51,700
I guess this is a good opportunity for us to talk about the LPL lens mount.

85
00:05:51,700 --> 00:05:54,900
Now, I have never taken off

86
00:05:54,900 --> 00:05:58,980
or put on a PL lens before. Oh, oh, okay, you need support, I guess.

87
00:05:58,980 --> 00:06:04,260
Yeah, yeah, yeah, go for it. These are heavy lenses, you don't want to just like. This is a $20,000 lens, so I don't want to mess it up.

88
00:06:04,260 --> 00:06:08,620
Okay, $28,000 lens, it doesn't even zoom.

89
00:06:08,620 --> 00:06:11,820
It has no features. Where's my features?

90
00:06:11,820 --> 00:06:15,260
Okay, so I just rip it out now? Well, have you undone it?

91
00:06:15,260 --> 00:06:19,100
I think so. It is moving, okay, I'll just move it. Okay. Oh, jeez.

92
00:06:19,100 --> 00:06:24,100
Oh, okay, okay, so you got an alignment line.

93
00:06:24,660 --> 00:06:27,900
Looks a little something like that. You've got the do not get dirty part.

94
00:06:27,900 --> 00:06:31,260
You've got the especially super duper do not get dirty part.

95
00:06:31,260 --> 00:06:34,860
And then you basically put the line on the thing. There's a little arrow.

96
00:06:34,860 --> 00:06:37,180
It's right there, right? Yeah, but are you, you're.

97
00:06:38,140 --> 00:06:41,260
Well, wait, what the, well, where does the line go? The line goes top.

98
00:06:42,620 --> 00:06:47,060
That's stupid. Why wouldn't the line align with the arrow?

99
00:06:47,060 --> 00:06:50,340
Because you know that top is top. I don't know.

100
00:06:50,340 --> 00:06:54,420
Well, why is there an arrow? This is an RE lens on an RE camera. There's no excuse.

101
00:06:54,420 --> 00:06:57,700
You did it. You're a first AC now.

102
00:06:57,700 --> 00:07:01,460
Okay, I mean, yeah, I guess that feels really secure.

103
00:07:01,460 --> 00:07:05,060
It's very secure. A lot of PL lenses are very, very heavy.

104
00:07:05,060 --> 00:07:11,060
And so the kind of mounting that's on, you know, an EF or E especially, it would just rip it off.

105
00:07:11,060 --> 00:07:16,660
So that's, you could potentially put rods and lens support, but this is a much more robust system.

106
00:07:16,660 --> 00:07:19,820
And it's more robust, because RE doesn't use

107
00:07:19,820 --> 00:07:23,960
a regular PL mount. They actually use an LPL or a large PL mount.

108
00:07:23,960 --> 00:07:30,820
So in order to mount a PL mount lens, you actually have to adapt this bigger one

109
00:07:30,820 --> 00:07:33,860
to this smaller one. So you've got a PL in your PL,

110
00:07:33,860 --> 00:07:38,060
so you can put a PL lens in your expensive camera.

111
00:07:38,060 --> 00:07:41,340
Yeah, and they do make adapters for EF and L lenses.

112
00:07:41,340 --> 00:07:46,260
And so you do have choices, which is really nice. And theoretically, you could do EF to E

113
00:07:46,260 --> 00:07:49,460
if you really wanted to. But if you're using these cameras,

114
00:07:49,460 --> 00:07:52,700
please use good lenses. This seems like a lot of yik-yak

115
00:07:52,700 --> 00:07:55,740
without actually turning the thing on. Wait, we're supposed to use these?

116
00:07:55,740 --> 00:07:59,660
I'm not. I don't want to break it or anything, but because of course they do,

117
00:07:59,660 --> 00:08:04,740
RE uses their own proprietary media that they confusingly call Codex.

118
00:08:04,740 --> 00:08:07,820
Oh, that's- Really? I didn't even think about that. That's so confusing.

119
00:08:07,820 --> 00:08:11,220
That is so stupid. Codex has a meaning.

120
00:08:11,220 --> 00:08:17,220
It's the plural of codec, which is the format in which the media is encoded.

121
00:08:17,220 --> 00:08:21,660
There is RE raw internally, but there is no compressed raw.

122
00:08:21,660 --> 00:08:24,980
Red has a stranglehold on that. So what is it? Like a patent thing?

123
00:08:24,980 --> 00:08:28,540
It's a patent thing. So you can do internal raw, but it has to be uncompressed.

124
00:08:28,540 --> 00:08:32,220
And then there's pro res, a bunch of different formats that are compressed pro res.

125
00:08:32,220 --> 00:08:36,300
But you would never shoot compressed in a camera like this, would you?

126
00:08:36,300 --> 00:08:40,220
Really? Because pro res still has a ton of latitude. If you're doing like a feature

127
00:08:40,220 --> 00:08:43,580
and it's a big budget thing, no. You're doing raw and you have a dit and you're offloading the footage

128
00:08:43,580 --> 00:08:47,020
and then maybe compressing it in post. Because you can do it there.

129
00:08:47,020 --> 00:08:50,740
Explain what you mean by latitude. Latitude is basically everything that extends

130
00:08:50,740 --> 00:08:54,940
beyond what you can see in the image. Got it. So when you're shooting an image,

131
00:08:54,940 --> 00:08:58,220
something might look overexposed, but on a camera like this,

132
00:08:58,220 --> 00:09:03,080
everything above that line can actually be recovered. And if I shoot in raw,

133
00:09:03,080 --> 00:09:08,340
I might have more headroom there to recover something that was either overexposed

134
00:09:08,340 --> 00:09:13,500
or underexposed. Exactly, it's storing more information whereas a compressed format would compress that format

135
00:09:13,500 --> 00:09:16,740
and lose some of that information to play with. But pro res is still pretty good.

136
00:09:16,740 --> 00:09:21,860
That's why people were so excited when Apple added the ability to record pro res internally on the iPhone.

137
00:09:21,860 --> 00:09:24,860
Okay, I did actually want to put some media in it at some point here,

138
00:09:24,860 --> 00:09:31,420
but one of the features that really jumped off the page to me was the ability to digitally add film noise.

139
00:09:32,860 --> 00:09:37,220
In the shot. Yeah? So that basically you're ruining the cleaness

140
00:09:37,220 --> 00:09:40,940
of your image right from the get go. How does that make any sense?

141
00:09:40,940 --> 00:09:46,380
Please, please explain that to me. Essentially, you will always have grain and noise

142
00:09:46,380 --> 00:09:50,900
in your image. No matter how good your sensor is, no matter how much light there is, there's gonna be some level of grain.

143
00:09:50,900 --> 00:09:54,100
What always allowing you to do with their textures feature

144
00:09:54,100 --> 00:09:59,620
is choose the characteristics of the grain. So you can choose something that's a little coarser,

145
00:09:59,620 --> 00:10:03,060
something that's a little softer. You can actually look on their website

146
00:10:03,060 --> 00:10:08,480
and see like they have 20 different. I hate it. It's, I hear what you're saying,

147
00:10:08,480 --> 00:10:13,120
but it's actually kind of cool because it's part of the image processing pipeline.

148
00:10:13,120 --> 00:10:16,240
It would just be baked in there. And it is baked in on every camera ever.

149
00:10:16,240 --> 00:10:20,640
There's always grain, but now you get to choose the details of that grain.

150
00:10:20,640 --> 00:10:25,120
Let's pull it apart. I kind of want to. I don't think Ari would be very happy.

151
00:10:25,120 --> 00:10:29,800
Pretty much guarantee you. It's just a basic ass SSD in an enclosure.

152
00:10:29,800 --> 00:10:32,920
How easily would it come apart? Oh, look at that.

153
00:10:32,920 --> 00:10:37,280
The answer is pretty easily. There's an Ari rep somewhere that's just like sweating bullets now.

154
00:10:37,280 --> 00:10:41,040
They're like... Well, they knew who they sent it to. They loaned us these, by the way,

155
00:10:41,040 --> 00:10:44,040
just to kind of play around with. I don't think they realistically thought

156
00:10:44,040 --> 00:10:48,560
we were ever going to switch to them for our workflow. We learned our lesson. Well, one of the things that's really interesting

157
00:10:48,560 --> 00:10:51,960
is that Ari's had such a stranglehold on the high end market,

158
00:10:51,960 --> 00:10:55,680
but when Sony introduced the Venice, they started to be much more competitive.

159
00:10:55,680 --> 00:11:01,160
There's a lot more shows that are starting to use Sony. Their big strength is that you don't need as much lights.

160
00:11:01,160 --> 00:11:04,000
Their low light performance is incredible.

161
00:11:04,520 --> 00:11:08,680
I mean, there was a big budget sci-fi movie. The creator shot on an FX3.

162
00:11:08,680 --> 00:11:14,280
They use other cameras too. It's not just FX3. But Sony's, that's not even their best sensor.

163
00:11:14,280 --> 00:11:21,040
The Venice has a better sensor. The FX9 has a better sensor. And the FX3 costs like a tenth of what this costs.

164
00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:24,760
So what is Ari trying to sort of dip their toe

165
00:11:24,760 --> 00:11:28,480
into the budget creator space, kind of get some attention?

166
00:11:28,480 --> 00:11:32,160
Or what was the point of this? I think they're just trying to maybe kind of catch

167
00:11:32,160 --> 00:11:36,880
the eyes of people like us, but maybe focus more on cinematic qualities

168
00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:39,880
in their videos. And they're trying to grow their market

169
00:11:39,880 --> 00:11:42,880
to people that have previously not seen

170
00:11:42,880 --> 00:11:46,720
Ari cameras as accessible. Well, they are still not accessible.

171
00:11:46,720 --> 00:11:52,080
Got some work to do, boys. In all seriousness though, the difference in performance is very noticeable.

172
00:11:52,080 --> 00:11:58,680
And our team prepared some test footage for us to compare the Ari picture to what you can get off of.

173
00:11:58,680 --> 00:12:02,360
Even a very expensive, this is a professional camera.

174
00:12:02,360 --> 00:12:06,000
That's an FX6. That is for professionals.

175
00:12:06,000 --> 00:12:09,080
Okay. Don't worry, I got this.

176
00:12:09,080 --> 00:12:12,440
Sup, Glenn? How you doing, buddy? Good, how are you?

177
00:12:12,440 --> 00:12:16,000
Nice camera, poor man. Okay, well, this is cool.

178
00:12:16,000 --> 00:12:18,720
Actually, can you stand right in front of that light?

179
00:12:19,640 --> 00:12:25,960
Because that is wild. Even without me having any idea how to use this at all,

180
00:12:25,960 --> 00:12:29,680
I can shoot straight into our lights

181
00:12:29,680 --> 00:12:34,120
and see every little detail in the ripple of the diffusion layer.

182
00:12:34,120 --> 00:12:37,840
And again, without adjustment, I can see a ton of detail

183
00:12:37,840 --> 00:12:42,360
and even the shadows under his ARM by his like weightlifter belt thing here.

184
00:12:42,360 --> 00:12:46,320
That is fricking crazy. Yeah, I think even talking about the UI,

185
00:12:46,320 --> 00:12:50,200
I really appreciate a camera that has a well-designed touchscreen interface.

186
00:12:50,200 --> 00:12:54,160
There's a lot that, you know, it's all knobs and stuff and I still want that kind of control.

187
00:12:54,160 --> 00:13:00,360
But when I first used this camera, it was pretty easy to figure out where everything was.

188
00:13:00,360 --> 00:13:03,480
We've used red, we've used black magic.

189
00:13:03,480 --> 00:13:08,040
And this is significantly better than the red interface, that interface.

190
00:13:08,040 --> 00:13:11,760
Oh, it's got a little readout here so you can see exactly what everything's set to

191
00:13:11,760 --> 00:13:15,400
when you are just using this to look at what the heck you're doing.

192
00:13:16,480 --> 00:13:21,320
I don't know what this does. Oh, delete? You can delete shutter angles?

193
00:13:21,320 --> 00:13:25,480
I doubt you can delete some of the main ones. Let's, do you want to try?

194
00:13:25,480 --> 00:13:29,000
I deleted 180 degrees. We're never going back, it's never coming back.

195
00:13:29,000 --> 00:13:33,000
I can add it. I always appreciate that there's a focus magnification

196
00:13:33,000 --> 00:13:38,760
and a false color button here as well. Oh yeah, you should explain what false color is.

197
00:13:38,760 --> 00:13:42,520
Basically what false color does is it takes different exposures in the image

198
00:13:42,520 --> 00:13:46,800
and assigns it a color to show you how bright or how dark it is.

199
00:13:46,800 --> 00:13:49,920
It'll tell you, and this camera even includes that nice little cheat sheet

200
00:13:49,920 --> 00:13:54,080
because it's hard to remember the exact colors all the time in my brain.

201
00:13:54,080 --> 00:13:57,360
But it'll inform you when you're approaching,

202
00:13:57,360 --> 00:14:01,280
you know, crushing your whites and blacks, which is something you generally don't want to do

203
00:14:01,280 --> 00:14:05,760
when you're shooting. When you're in post and you're color correcting, you might, you know, crush the blacks a little bit,

204
00:14:05,760 --> 00:14:09,680
but you want to get all the information into the camera, into that footage so you can play with it.

205
00:14:09,680 --> 00:14:13,360
Leave that to the editor. Yes. Don't be making that decision in the camera,

206
00:14:13,360 --> 00:14:17,000
if you can avoid it. Starting at the bottom, we have our purple, which is our noise floor.

207
00:14:17,000 --> 00:14:21,080
Anything in the purple is just going to be crushed, ugly, just noise.

208
00:14:21,080 --> 00:14:24,320
Once you hit blue, then we're at the edge of shadow detail.

209
00:14:24,320 --> 00:14:28,760
So that's the absolute bottom of the exposure that you want to play around with.

210
00:14:28,760 --> 00:14:32,680
Then we get green, which is at 18% gray.

211
00:14:32,680 --> 00:14:37,360
And then you can go past that, it'll show you how exposed something is as you're approaching clipping.

212
00:14:37,360 --> 00:14:42,600
And again, you just want to make sure that you're not clipping your image because then they can't recover it,

213
00:14:42,600 --> 00:14:46,600
even though it would be really hard to clip on this camera, you'd kind of have to try.

214
00:14:46,600 --> 00:14:50,240
So they use B-mount batteries, which are better because they're harder

215
00:14:50,240 --> 00:14:54,320
to accidentally pop off, basically. Yeah, V-mount is the most common as the lock wears.

216
00:14:54,320 --> 00:14:57,520
It's not uncommon that as you rest on your shoulder, just kind of pops out.

217
00:14:57,520 --> 00:15:02,080
And that can be catastrophic in the middle of a shot. Okay, let's look at the footage.

218
00:15:02,080 --> 00:15:05,600
Oh, it's a blind test. Yeah, we do. I was going to ask if we could do a blind test.

219
00:15:05,600 --> 00:15:09,960
Heck yeah, we can. Okay. You can think Hoffman for that. I think that one's the Alexa.

220
00:15:09,960 --> 00:15:14,200
This one? The one that's not totally messed up color? Yeah, that one's bad. It's not, we're not on the right test right now.

221
00:15:14,200 --> 00:15:17,280
Okay, cool. Is that an Alexa shot though? This is an Alexa shot.

222
00:15:17,280 --> 00:15:20,280
Okay, good. So you can tell, we should switch over to Aria.

223
00:15:20,280 --> 00:15:24,720
That's not what I said. You heard it here first, folks. That's not what I said. I'm actually blind as well.

224
00:15:24,720 --> 00:15:28,280
I don't know which one is which. Back to what David was saying about there being

225
00:15:28,280 --> 00:15:32,520
more to perceived image quality than the number of pixels.

226
00:15:32,520 --> 00:15:37,880
One of the things that stands out about this is just how sharp the image is.

227
00:15:37,880 --> 00:15:42,160
And that's going to come down to the combination of the sensor and also the lens.

228
00:15:42,160 --> 00:15:45,880
I'm assuming we didn't use the same lens on each of the cameras.

229
00:15:45,880 --> 00:15:49,800
And you can just see there's no aberration.

230
00:15:49,800 --> 00:15:53,120
There's just so much detail in these edges here.

231
00:15:53,120 --> 00:15:56,880
There's just absolutely no way that this is the Sony. It is my belief that this is the Aria.

232
00:15:56,880 --> 00:16:02,280
I mean, even look, you can see in the black swatch, there's just so much more detail.

233
00:16:02,280 --> 00:16:06,040
See, I'm interested in the way that the highlight roll off

234
00:16:06,040 --> 00:16:09,280
is happening in this. I maintain this as the Aria.

235
00:16:09,280 --> 00:16:14,080
I'm going to say it's really hard. The focus is a little bit off on this, so it's hard to know.

236
00:16:14,080 --> 00:16:18,200
I'm going to go say that the softer one is the Aria

237
00:16:18,200 --> 00:16:21,880
based on the highlights. Really? Yeah. Okay.

238
00:16:21,920 --> 00:16:25,560
But I do like the way the color is on the second one.

239
00:16:25,560 --> 00:16:29,880
You know what? Shoot, David, I think you're right. They both look very good.

240
00:16:29,880 --> 00:16:33,160
No, you're right, you're right. You've got to be right.

241
00:16:33,160 --> 00:16:37,000
Because this was set at the same exposure, same T-stop, because I was even using a cine lens

242
00:16:37,000 --> 00:16:41,160
on the Sony. Okay, yeah, you're probably right.

243
00:16:41,160 --> 00:16:45,280
So which one is Aria? This one is Sony.

244
00:16:45,280 --> 00:16:48,320
Oh, okay, so I was right. Wait.

245
00:16:48,320 --> 00:16:51,680
That's Aria? Yes, sir. Second is Aria. Okay, you were right.

246
00:16:52,040 --> 00:16:56,040
Okay, one. Yeah, we might want to do that. Oh, this is the Aria though.

247
00:16:56,040 --> 00:17:00,840
Come on, there's no question. Oh, look at the shadows.

248
00:17:00,840 --> 00:17:04,600
Look at the shadows on his neck. Look at the detail in the shirt.

249
00:17:04,600 --> 00:17:08,720
It's not even close. And okay, yeah, it's a little fuzzier or whatever.

250
00:17:08,720 --> 00:17:11,840
That is not the difference here. No, I don't think so.

251
00:17:13,240 --> 00:17:17,600
Yeah, we don't even need the slider. We don't need it at all.

252
00:17:17,600 --> 00:17:22,120
Yeah, that looks a lot better. Especially this dramatic shot with the shading on it.

253
00:17:22,120 --> 00:17:25,840
You can see that better red sensitivity. Yeah.

254
00:17:25,840 --> 00:17:28,920
In the, cause Andy, he's rosy.

255
00:17:28,920 --> 00:17:33,080
He's a rosy boy. What? That's the Sony?

256
00:17:35,520 --> 00:17:39,960
A lot of it comes down to grading too. Like you're going to have an artistic vision

257
00:17:39,960 --> 00:17:43,720
and you're going to do what you do with it and you can have a great image come out

258
00:17:43,720 --> 00:17:47,160
of a pretty basic camera and you can have a pretty crap image come out

259
00:17:47,200 --> 00:17:50,880
of even the finest of cameras. If you don't know what you're doing.

260
00:17:50,880 --> 00:17:55,440
This is not a very scientific test. This was rough and tumble, very dirty.

261
00:17:55,440 --> 00:18:00,320
And so while the settings are matched, it's not a perfect example of what we would get.

262
00:18:00,320 --> 00:18:05,360
That's a Sony, okay. Okay, all right, all right, all right. This seems like we should be able to get it.

263
00:18:05,360 --> 00:18:09,320
I'm going to let you go first this time. It's really hard. Yeah, go for it.

264
00:18:09,320 --> 00:18:13,120
I have very little confidence in whatever answer I am going to give.

265
00:18:13,120 --> 00:18:16,640
I like the look of the first one more, but I think it does come down to settings

266
00:18:16,640 --> 00:18:19,760
and lighting in this case.

267
00:18:19,760 --> 00:18:24,320
I'm going to guess that the second is the RE, but I have basically zero confidence.

268
00:18:24,320 --> 00:18:27,840
I think you're right. I'm just going with David's guess. Is that right?

269
00:18:27,840 --> 00:18:32,080
That is correct. That's right, okay. So this one's a test of how the bokeh looks.

270
00:18:34,120 --> 00:18:40,280
I think the Sony is the second one. This is a more true red versus this having a bit

271
00:18:40,280 --> 00:18:46,680
of an orangey cast, but the noise is more pleasing on the second one.

272
00:18:46,680 --> 00:18:50,280
And I know that Sony's low light performance is outstanding.

273
00:18:50,280 --> 00:18:53,720
I think that the second one's the RE, but I'm not sure.

274
00:18:53,720 --> 00:18:57,240
Yes, you're right. Second one's RE. Dang it, I got it wrong. Okay, balls.

275
00:18:57,240 --> 00:19:02,360
I think this just reinforces our point about the image out of the camera being very difficult

276
00:19:02,360 --> 00:19:06,200
to tell and that's not necessarily the selling point of an RE.

277
00:19:06,200 --> 00:19:09,720
It's the latitude you get in correcting the image after.

278
00:19:09,720 --> 00:19:14,560
So why don't we take a look at the timeline where we can play around with just the footage

279
00:19:14,560 --> 00:19:18,320
and see what you can recover, see what you can play with. Wow.

280
00:19:18,320 --> 00:19:22,680
So you can see, we've got everything down there,

281
00:19:22,680 --> 00:19:27,360
but you'd never really know that based on the original shot. We shot a bunch of demo footage on these cameras.

282
00:19:27,360 --> 00:19:31,120
By the way, we'll link some of it below, but the real purpose of all of this,

283
00:19:31,120 --> 00:19:34,200
and again, thanks to RE for loaning us these cameras,

284
00:19:34,200 --> 00:19:38,560
was to shoot some high definition and HDR demo footage

285
00:19:38,560 --> 00:19:42,680
for us to put on TVs and on iPads and stuff like that, that is our own,

286
00:19:42,680 --> 00:19:48,280
that we don't have to license from someone else and yet have it be at peak cinematic quality.

287
00:19:49,720 --> 00:19:55,240
Pun intended, you know, peak brightness to test video. I like it, that's good, that's good.

288
00:19:55,240 --> 00:20:00,240
Anyway, okay, so then what can we get back near that sun?

289
00:20:00,280 --> 00:20:04,680
We can actually see the circle of the sun.

290
00:20:04,680 --> 00:20:08,880
That's crazy. That is crazy to have that.

291
00:20:08,880 --> 00:20:12,440
And also, you know, everything in here,

292
00:20:12,440 --> 00:20:15,920
you know, everything in here and in all this subtle detail

293
00:20:15,920 --> 00:20:19,560
in his jacket that is directly backlit in his face,

294
00:20:19,560 --> 00:20:23,560
we're not getting one. Not even after this test?

295
00:20:23,560 --> 00:20:26,840
No, not even after people subscribe to ShortCircuit.