WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.120 This is one of those videos that we end up making almost entirely by accident. 00:00:04.120 --> 00:00:08.120 Meet the Alexa 35 on Ari's website. 00:00:08.120 --> 00:00:12.800 They brag that most big productions are shot on Ari. 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. 00:00:17.600 --> 00:00:21.680 You've got the 35, which is a $70,000 camera, 00:00:21.680 --> 00:00:24.880 and that's before you buy any kind of rig for it, 00:00:24.880 --> 00:00:29.120 a follow focus, a flippin' lens, or a power distribution unit. 00:00:29.120 --> 00:00:34.400 It costs $4,000 less than the Mini LF, which uses their old sensor technology, 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. 00:00:39.200 --> 00:00:45.180 Yes, for a while, probably. Yeah, but why? Because Ari's sensors are still the best, 00:00:45.180 --> 00:00:49.760 and they've been using basically the same sensor for 13 years. 00:00:49.760 --> 00:00:54.520 Or sensors. So here's the thing, with the Alexa 35, 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 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 00:01:04.640 --> 00:01:09.240 that you can capture, and then recover detail from when you're working on your production. 00:01:09.240 --> 00:01:12.560 It's Super 35, which is very standard for cinema cameras. 00:01:12.560 --> 00:01:15.960 It's got a 4.6K sensor up from 3.4. 00:01:15.960 --> 00:01:20.020 Netflix certification. Exactly, and it's got better color science 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. 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. 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 00:01:36.740 --> 00:01:41.820 when this has a higher resolution sensor with better dynamic range and better color science. 00:01:41.820 --> 00:01:45.220 And that's where things get really tricky and magical. 00:01:45.220 --> 00:01:48.500 So we brought along a mini LF. 00:01:48.500 --> 00:01:52.820 This uses the old sensor. It costs $4,000 more, 00:01:52.820 --> 00:01:56.820 and that's because it uses two of the old sensor. 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, 00:02:02.140 --> 00:02:06.100 and their top tier camera actually uses... Three of them. 00:02:06.100 --> 00:02:09.940 And that gives us the equivalent of, you were saying about IMAX? 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. 00:02:15.540 --> 00:02:18.980 It's about 6K resolution. So who is this actually for then? 00:02:18.980 --> 00:02:22.540 Because if I'm shooting a feature, I'm shooting on an Alexa 65, 00:02:22.940 --> 00:02:26.860 with the three sensors, which is rental only, by the way. You cannot even buy them. 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, 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. 00:02:34.940 --> 00:02:38.020 So the image quality should be like, pretty similar. 00:02:38.020 --> 00:02:41.580 Are you asking why I would use the 35 over the mini? Yes. 00:02:42.460 --> 00:02:47.100 The new sensor and better color science. Is the IO similar, or does it have... 00:02:47.100 --> 00:02:50.100 Very, very similar. Okay, so you've got Ethernet, 00:02:50.100 --> 00:02:54.020 which is for metadata for virtual productions. If you're shooting something like the Mandalorian, 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. 00:02:57.940 --> 00:03:01.340 They've got, okay, audio in. 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. 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 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. 00:03:14.140 --> 00:03:18.700 So scratch audio, essentially. Oh, it also has scratch audio mics in the front. 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 00:03:22.860 --> 00:03:27.060 with a camera like this. Those aren't gonna do anything to help you sync up. 00:03:27.060 --> 00:03:30.860 Speaking of syncing, you've got timecode as well as syncing. 00:03:30.860 --> 00:03:35.460 So this works more on pulses. And timecode allows you to kind of like, 00:03:35.460 --> 00:03:38.700 before the mission, you set your watches 00:03:38.700 --> 00:03:42.420 and then ensure that all of your footage is perfectly synchronized for the editor. 00:03:42.420 --> 00:03:46.060 You've got 12 volt power out. This is very, very limited. 00:03:46.060 --> 00:03:49.540 Really, you're gonna want an add-on part like this. Yeah, just like red. 00:03:49.540 --> 00:03:53.620 Remember that unboxing a while back when I bought the reds and then realized 00:03:53.620 --> 00:03:56.740 that was like a third of the total cost of the ecosystem? 00:03:58.060 --> 00:04:01.780 Ari's got you there, too. So this guy will do 24 volt out 00:04:01.780 --> 00:04:07.100 to six different peripheral devices, whether it's that aforementioned audio module 00:04:07.100 --> 00:04:10.660 or, I mean, what else would you run? External displays. 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. 00:04:15.460 --> 00:04:19.500 You've got the built-in display. And then you can do two more SDI displays 00:04:19.500 --> 00:04:25.500 for all the various stakeholders who might wanna be watching what the operator is shooting. 00:04:25.500 --> 00:04:28.780 This is cool. You've also have an SDI in. 00:04:28.780 --> 00:04:33.300 So if I, the operator of this camera, wanted to have a little picture-in-picture 00:04:33.300 --> 00:04:37.660 of what someone else is shooting on a B cam, I could totally do that, too. 00:04:37.660 --> 00:04:41.140 And I guess if we were to summarize why this, 00:04:41.140 --> 00:04:45.180 it comes down to versatility? When you hit this level of production, 00:04:45.180 --> 00:04:49.220 resolution isn't king. It really comes down to, when I bring this- 00:04:49.220 --> 00:04:50.060 Sackilage. 00:04:52.300 --> 00:04:56.540 In fact, when you get to too high of a resolution, it can counter, is counterproductive 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. 00:05:00.380 --> 00:05:03.740 Yeah, exactly. Please drop the frame rate of this video down to 24, 00:05:03.740 --> 00:05:06.420 maybe 12. Are we shooting at 24? No, no. 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 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. 00:05:18.220 --> 00:05:21.820 Right, because there's a limit to how big you can make the sensor. Exactly. 00:05:21.820 --> 00:05:26.500 Theoretically, you could manufacture a sensor that's this big, and your yields might be 00:05:26.500 --> 00:05:29.980 one out of every 100,000 that you try to fab. 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 00:05:33.780 --> 00:05:37.420 you would choose the 35 over the mini, is this is a larger sensor, 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, 00:05:41.700 --> 00:05:45.620 but if you go back decades, Super 35 is much more standard. 00:05:45.620 --> 00:05:48.700 Right, so there's more to lens compatibility than just the mount. 00:05:48.700 --> 00:05:51.700 I guess this is a good opportunity for us to talk about the LPL lens mount. 00:05:51.700 --> 00:05:54.900 Now, I have never taken off 00:05:54.900 --> 00:05:58.980 or put on a PL lens before. Oh, oh, okay, you need support, I guess. 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. 00:06:04.260 --> 00:06:08.620 Okay, $28,000 lens, it doesn't even zoom. 00:06:08.620 --> 00:06:11.820 It has no features. Where's my features? 00:06:11.820 --> 00:06:15.260 Okay, so I just rip it out now? Well, have you undone it? 00:06:15.260 --> 00:06:19.100 I think so. It is moving, okay, I'll just move it. Okay. Oh, jeez. 00:06:19.100 --> 00:06:24.100 Oh, okay, okay, so you got an alignment line. 00:06:24.660 --> 00:06:27.900 Looks a little something like that. You've got the do not get dirty part. 00:06:27.900 --> 00:06:31.260 You've got the especially super duper do not get dirty part. 00:06:31.260 --> 00:06:34.860 And then you basically put the line on the thing. There's a little arrow. 00:06:34.860 --> 00:06:37.180 It's right there, right? Yeah, but are you, you're. 00:06:38.140 --> 00:06:41.260 Well, wait, what the, well, where does the line go? The line goes top. 00:06:42.620 --> 00:06:47.060 That's stupid. Why wouldn't the line align with the arrow? 00:06:47.060 --> 00:06:50.340 Because you know that top is top. I don't know. 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. 00:06:54.420 --> 00:06:57.700 You did it. You're a first AC now. 00:06:57.700 --> 00:07:01.460 Okay, I mean, yeah, I guess that feels really secure. 00:07:01.460 --> 00:07:05.060 It's very secure. A lot of PL lenses are very, very heavy. 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. 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. 00:07:16.660 --> 00:07:19.820 And it's more robust, because RE doesn't use 00:07:19.820 --> 00:07:23.960 a regular PL mount. They actually use an LPL or a large PL mount. 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 00:07:30.820 --> 00:07:33.860 to this smaller one. So you've got a PL in your PL, 00:07:33.860 --> 00:07:38.060 so you can put a PL lens in your expensive camera. 00:07:38.060 --> 00:07:41.340 Yeah, and they do make adapters for EF and L lenses. 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 00:07:46.260 --> 00:07:49.460 if you really wanted to. But if you're using these cameras, 00:07:49.460 --> 00:07:52.700 please use good lenses. This seems like a lot of yik-yak 00:07:52.700 --> 00:07:55.740 without actually turning the thing on. Wait, we're supposed to use these? 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, 00:07:59.660 --> 00:08:04.740 RE uses their own proprietary media that they confusingly call Codex. 00:08:04.740 --> 00:08:07.820 Oh, that's- Really? I didn't even think about that. That's so confusing. 00:08:07.820 --> 00:08:11.220 That is so stupid. Codex has a meaning. 00:08:11.220 --> 00:08:17.220 It's the plural of codec, which is the format in which the media is encoded. 00:08:17.220 --> 00:08:21.660 There is RE raw internally, but there is no compressed raw. 00:08:21.660 --> 00:08:24.980 Red has a stranglehold on that. So what is it? Like a patent thing? 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. 00:08:28.540 --> 00:08:32.220 And then there's pro res, a bunch of different formats that are compressed pro res. 00:08:32.220 --> 00:08:36.300 But you would never shoot compressed in a camera like this, would you? 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 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 00:08:43.580 --> 00:08:47.020 and then maybe compressing it in post. Because you can do it there. 00:08:47.020 --> 00:08:50.740 Explain what you mean by latitude. Latitude is basically everything that extends 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, 00:08:54.940 --> 00:08:58.220 something might look overexposed, but on a camera like this, 00:08:58.220 --> 00:09:03.080 everything above that line can actually be recovered. And if I shoot in raw, 00:09:03.080 --> 00:09:08.340 I might have more headroom there to recover something that was either overexposed 00:09:08.340 --> 00:09:13.500 or underexposed. Exactly, it's storing more information whereas a compressed format would compress that format 00:09:13.500 --> 00:09:16.740 and lose some of that information to play with. But pro res is still pretty good. 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. 00:09:21.860 --> 00:09:24.860 Okay, I did actually want to put some media in it at some point here, 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. 00:09:32.860 --> 00:09:37.220 In the shot. Yeah? So that basically you're ruining the cleaness 00:09:37.220 --> 00:09:40.940 of your image right from the get go. How does that make any sense? 00:09:40.940 --> 00:09:46.380 Please, please explain that to me. Essentially, you will always have grain and noise 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. 00:09:50.900 --> 00:09:54.100 What always allowing you to do with their textures feature 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, 00:09:59.620 --> 00:10:03.060 something that's a little softer. You can actually look on their website 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, 00:10:08.480 --> 00:10:13.120 but it's actually kind of cool because it's part of the image processing pipeline. 00:10:13.120 --> 00:10:16.240 It would just be baked in there. And it is baked in on every camera ever. 00:10:16.240 --> 00:10:20.640 There's always grain, but now you get to choose the details of that grain. 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. 00:10:25.120 --> 00:10:29.800 Pretty much guarantee you. It's just a basic ass SSD in an enclosure. 00:10:29.800 --> 00:10:32.920 How easily would it come apart? Oh, look at that. 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. 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, 00:10:41.040 --> 00:10:44.040 just to kind of play around with. I don't think they realistically thought 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 00:10:48.560 --> 00:10:51.960 is that Ari's had such a stranglehold on the high end market, 00:10:51.960 --> 00:10:55.680 but when Sony introduced the Venice, they started to be much more competitive. 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. 00:11:01.160 --> 00:11:04.000 Their low light performance is incredible. 00:11:04.520 --> 00:11:08.680 I mean, there was a big budget sci-fi movie. The creator shot on an FX3. 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. 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. 00:11:21.040 --> 00:11:24.760 So what is Ari trying to sort of dip their toe 00:11:24.760 --> 00:11:28.480 into the budget creator space, kind of get some attention? 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 00:11:32.160 --> 00:11:36.880 the eyes of people like us, but maybe focus more on cinematic qualities 00:11:36.880 --> 00:11:39.880 in their videos. And they're trying to grow their market 00:11:39.880 --> 00:11:42.880 to people that have previously not seen 00:11:42.880 --> 00:11:46.720 Ari cameras as accessible. Well, they are still not accessible. 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. 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. 00:11:58.680 --> 00:12:02.360 Even a very expensive, this is a professional camera. 00:12:02.360 --> 00:12:06.000 That's an FX6. That is for professionals. 00:12:06.000 --> 00:12:09.080 Okay. Don't worry, I got this. 00:12:09.080 --> 00:12:12.440 Sup, Glenn? How you doing, buddy? Good, how are you? 00:12:12.440 --> 00:12:16.000 Nice camera, poor man. Okay, well, this is cool. 00:12:16.000 --> 00:12:18.720 Actually, can you stand right in front of that light? 00:12:19.640 --> 00:12:25.960 Because that is wild. Even without me having any idea how to use this at all, 00:12:25.960 --> 00:12:29.680 I can shoot straight into our lights 00:12:29.680 --> 00:12:34.120 and see every little detail in the ripple of the diffusion layer. 00:12:34.120 --> 00:12:37.840 And again, without adjustment, I can see a ton of detail 00:12:37.840 --> 00:12:42.360 and even the shadows under his ARM by his like weightlifter belt thing here. 00:12:42.360 --> 00:12:46.320 That is fricking crazy. Yeah, I think even talking about the UI, 00:12:46.320 --> 00:12:50.200 I really appreciate a camera that has a well-designed touchscreen interface. 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. 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. 00:13:00.360 --> 00:13:03.480 We've used red, we've used black magic. 00:13:03.480 --> 00:13:08.040 And this is significantly better than the red interface, that interface. 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 00:13:11.760 --> 00:13:15.400 when you are just using this to look at what the heck you're doing. 00:13:16.480 --> 00:13:21.320 I don't know what this does. Oh, delete? You can delete shutter angles? 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? 00:13:25.480 --> 00:13:29.000 I deleted 180 degrees. We're never going back, it's never coming back. 00:13:29.000 --> 00:13:33.000 I can add it. I always appreciate that there's a focus magnification 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. 00:13:38.760 --> 00:13:42.520 Basically what false color does is it takes different exposures in the image 00:13:42.520 --> 00:13:46.800 and assigns it a color to show you how bright or how dark it is. 00:13:46.800 --> 00:13:49.920 It'll tell you, and this camera even includes that nice little cheat sheet 00:13:49.920 --> 00:13:54.080 because it's hard to remember the exact colors all the time in my brain. 00:13:54.080 --> 00:13:57.360 But it'll inform you when you're approaching, 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 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, 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. 00:14:09.680 --> 00:14:13.360 Leave that to the editor. Yes. Don't be making that decision in the camera, 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. 00:14:17.000 --> 00:14:21.080 Anything in the purple is just going to be crushed, ugly, just noise. 00:14:21.080 --> 00:14:24.320 Once you hit blue, then we're at the edge of shadow detail. 00:14:24.320 --> 00:14:28.760 So that's the absolute bottom of the exposure that you want to play around with. 00:14:28.760 --> 00:14:32.680 Then we get green, which is at 18% gray. 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. 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, 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. 00:14:46.600 --> 00:14:50.240 So they use B-mount batteries, which are better because they're harder 00:14:50.240 --> 00:14:54.320 to accidentally pop off, basically. Yeah, V-mount is the most common as the lock wears. 00:14:54.320 --> 00:14:57.520 It's not uncommon that as you rest on your shoulder, just kind of pops out. 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. 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. 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. 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. 00:15:14.200 --> 00:15:17.280 Okay, cool. Is that an Alexa shot though? This is an Alexa shot. 00:15:17.280 --> 00:15:20.280 Okay, good. So you can tell, we should switch over to Aria. 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. 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 00:15:28.280 --> 00:15:32.520 more to perceived image quality than the number of pixels. 00:15:32.520 --> 00:15:37.880 One of the things that stands out about this is just how sharp the image is. 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. 00:15:42.160 --> 00:15:45.880 I'm assuming we didn't use the same lens on each of the cameras. 00:15:45.880 --> 00:15:49.800 And you can just see there's no aberration. 00:15:49.800 --> 00:15:53.120 There's just so much detail in these edges here. 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. 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. 00:16:02.280 --> 00:16:06.040 See, I'm interested in the way that the highlight roll off 00:16:06.040 --> 00:16:09.280 is happening in this. I maintain this as the Aria. 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. 00:16:14.080 --> 00:16:18.200 I'm going to go say that the softer one is the Aria 00:16:18.200 --> 00:16:21.880 based on the highlights. Really? Yeah. Okay. 00:16:21.920 --> 00:16:25.560 But I do like the way the color is on the second one. 00:16:25.560 --> 00:16:29.880 You know what? Shoot, David, I think you're right. They both look very good. 00:16:29.880 --> 00:16:33.160 No, you're right, you're right. You've got to be right. 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 00:16:37.000 --> 00:16:41.160 on the Sony. Okay, yeah, you're probably right. 00:16:41.160 --> 00:16:45.280 So which one is Aria? This one is Sony. 00:16:45.280 --> 00:16:48.320 Oh, okay, so I was right. Wait. 00:16:48.320 --> 00:16:51.680 That's Aria? Yes, sir. Second is Aria. Okay, you were right. 00:16:52.040 --> 00:16:56.040 Okay, one. Yeah, we might want to do that. Oh, this is the Aria though. 00:16:56.040 --> 00:17:00.840 Come on, there's no question. Oh, look at the shadows. 00:17:00.840 --> 00:17:04.600 Look at the shadows on his neck. Look at the detail in the shirt. 00:17:04.600 --> 00:17:08.720 It's not even close. And okay, yeah, it's a little fuzzier or whatever. 00:17:08.720 --> 00:17:11.840 That is not the difference here. No, I don't think so. 00:17:13.240 --> 00:17:17.600 Yeah, we don't even need the slider. We don't need it at all. 00:17:17.600 --> 00:17:22.120 Yeah, that looks a lot better. Especially this dramatic shot with the shading on it. 00:17:22.120 --> 00:17:25.840 You can see that better red sensitivity. Yeah. 00:17:25.840 --> 00:17:28.920 In the, cause Andy, he's rosy. 00:17:28.920 --> 00:17:33.080 He's a rosy boy. What? That's the Sony? 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 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 00:17:43.720 --> 00:17:47.160 of a pretty basic camera and you can have a pretty crap image come out 00:17:47.200 --> 00:17:50.880 of even the finest of cameras. If you don't know what you're doing. 00:17:50.880 --> 00:17:55.440 This is not a very scientific test. This was rough and tumble, very dirty. 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. 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. 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. 00:18:09.320 --> 00:18:13.120 I have very little confidence in whatever answer I am going to give. 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 00:18:16.640 --> 00:18:19.760 and lighting in this case. 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. 00:18:24.320 --> 00:18:27.840 I think you're right. I'm just going with David's guess. Is that right? 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. 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 00:18:40.280 --> 00:18:46.680 of an orangey cast, but the noise is more pleasing on the second one. 00:18:46.680 --> 00:18:50.280 And I know that Sony's low light performance is outstanding. 00:18:50.280 --> 00:18:53.720 I think that the second one's the RE, but I'm not sure. 00:18:53.720 --> 00:18:57.240 Yes, you're right. Second one's RE. Dang it, I got it wrong. Okay, balls. 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 00:19:02.360 --> 00:19:06.200 to tell and that's not necessarily the selling point of an RE. 00:19:06.200 --> 00:19:09.720 It's the latitude you get in correcting the image after. 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 00:19:14.560 --> 00:19:18.320 and see what you can recover, see what you can play with. Wow. 00:19:18.320 --> 00:19:22.680 So you can see, we've got everything down there, 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. 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, 00:19:31.120 --> 00:19:34.200 and again, thanks to RE for loaning us these cameras, 00:19:34.200 --> 00:19:38.560 was to shoot some high definition and HDR demo footage 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, 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. 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. 00:19:55.240 --> 00:20:00.240 Anyway, okay, so then what can we get back near that sun? 00:20:00.280 --> 00:20:04.680 We can actually see the circle of the sun. 00:20:04.680 --> 00:20:08.880 That's crazy. That is crazy to have that. 00:20:08.880 --> 00:20:12.440 And also, you know, everything in here, 00:20:12.440 --> 00:20:15.920 you know, everything in here and in all this subtle detail 00:20:15.920 --> 00:20:19.560 in his jacket that is directly backlit in his face, 00:20:19.560 --> 00:20:23.560 we're not getting one. Not even after this test? 00:20:23.560 --> 00:20:26.840 No, not even after people subscribe to ShortCircuit.