Alexa 35...meh

I think the Textures feature is gonna be big draw for cinematographers, some of whom have been loosing some control over the final version of their image because of all the post flexibility. For them the idea that they can bake in texture that they like and that can't be changed by the colorist is gonna be big draw.

I can 100% assure you that NO proper cinematographer out there would want to BAKE in some TEXTURE (they can later add in post) just to stop a colorist from messng with their work.

I have been digging into it and I can see better what they are doing with textures now. Dr. Tamara Seybold from Arri is Technical Lead Image Science director. She states that textures are "a good starting point" to build off of. Arri relates it to something like film stock that a DP would choose. And then the colorist can have a better foundation from there.

Harald Brendel is Head of the Center of Competence Image Science in the Camera and R&D. He describes that the process of adding the textures actually it the very first step in the sensor process, right after throwing away the bad pixels. This is done before the debayer process, and anything else in the image chain. This is why the textures are baked in. It obtains a cleaner image before the rest of the destructive process happens in the sensor. One that would not be possible in post.

It makes more sense after reading about this and I think that until people really start playing with it it will be hard to visualize what the end result will be. Arri equating textures to a film stock that we have lived with for 100 years is pretty smart of them. It makes it seem like more of a creative choice.

The good part is, unlike film stock of the past, we can choose to use it, or not use it.

I can 100% assure you that NO proper cinematographer out there would want to BAKE in some TEXTURE (they can later add in post) just to stop a colorist from messng with their work.

Sorry, but every single cinematographer who has ever worked with the Alexa up to this point has BAKED in a texture. Every one of them. The texture they baked in was the default Alexa K445 noise texture that was set by the manufacturer. People referred to that as the Alexa texture and they loved it. Now, along the K445, there will be other noise textures available, you can pick one of the others or you can pick the K445, but no matter what, it will be a choice, and will be BAKED in as it has always been.

Why some people assume that this choice will be made by the cinematographer without consulting the director and post dept, is a little beyond me. We do have monitors on set and we do live grade on set for everyone to see. The director will either prefer one texture or the other but this is a creative decision like everything else we do.

Also, a "noise texture" and a "look" are two different things. A look is a combination of a CDL and a LUT. No one is talking about baking in a look here. Of course you would not do that. But a noise texture is different. Everyone will bake in a noise texture, it's just a question of which one.

If you want to be afraid of something here is a thought: If a cinematographer can get fired for picking the "wrong" texture, that would mean that picking default K445 texture could get you fired if that wasn't the right texture for the project. (I don't make the rules.)

Let's stop being afraid of this new creative tool and let's start testing it and learning when and how to use it.

Let me add that IMHO the UMP 12K has a pretty nice texture, which is of course baked in.

Sorry, but every single cinematographer who has ever worked with the Alexa up to this point has BAKED in a texture.

The director will either prefer one texture or the other but this is a creative decision like everything else we do.

If you want to be afraid of something here is a thought: If a cinematographer can get fired for picking the "wrong" texture, that would mean that picking default K445 texture could get you fired if that wasn't the right texture for the project.

I couldn't agree more. I'm also very surprised that people here are against this. There are tons of creative choices being made before material lands in post production. Camera, lenses, filters, lights, set dressing, make up etc. Everything contributes to the final look and texture of the image. Being against choosing a texture is to me similar to saying you're not allowed to use pro mist or a skintone olpf because the colorist needs to do it in post.

It's also weird to assume it's only a DP's choice. I would totally be up for deciding the texture to suit the production up front in collaboration with the Director and DP as a colorist.

I’m not against baking anything into an image.

The inference was that this feature would appeal to a cinematographer that wanted to ensure a baked in look that couldn’t be altered as a way of ensuring creative intent.

JB

There are tons of creative choices being made before material lands in post production. Camera, lenses, filters, lights, set dressing, make up etc. Everything contributes to the final look and texture of the image. Being against choosing a texture is to me similar to saying you're not allowed to use pro mist or a skintone olpf because the colorist needs to do it in post.

The million and one production choices which are unalterable after-the-fact may not be the greatest argument for adding yet another. And maybe least of all for raw recording, the rationale of which is it's, like, "raw"? So far we don't know how comparable "textures" really are to film stocks -- the analogy seems a bit stretched -- but you'd think one advantage of not using an actual film stock, or maybe the only advantage, is not being stuck with it where you might have preferred other choices for this or that. And where you have those choices in post. Or are we going to dial in something new on the camera, for every shot?

Understood, that what's captured in a current model Alexa is not a blank slate, but it is at least designed to record data to allow vast leeway in post. If productions want to bake in "nostalgic" as surely as they bake in lighting or costumes, or a Promist filter (something to be gained by doing it optically, rather than in post?), great.

But on its face, this one seems a strange choice. It's one thing you don't need to impose from the outset, unlike so much else.

It looks like the K445 'default' will be a middle ground, while other options like "clarity" and "high clarity" are on the opposite spectrum of "nostalgic" and "soft nostalgic."

I agree with the above that the URSA 12K's texture is filmic and I'd rather just have one option. This sounds like it will only complicate workflows where you could be blamed for adding the wrong texture.

As a datapoint, all I can tell you is that the cinematographers I've been talking with here in LA working on top tier streaming shows with Alexa LFs and Venice cams have been really excited about the Alexa 35 -- and they're really excited about the textures feature. They are the primary target market for this camera, and for them this will become the new standard tool to use.

This will not stop the Ursa from being a very good choice for its own market segment. The Ursa is not being threatened by the A35 -- much like the Mini LF didn't threaten the Ursa market.

The A35 is a replacement of the Alexa Mini and an alternative to the LF cams. For a lot DPs currently shooting with those cameras moving to the A35 will be a no brainer.

The million and one production choices which are unalterable after-the-fact may not be the greatest argument for adding yet another. And maybe least of all for raw recording, the rationale of which is it's, like, "raw"? So far we don't know how comparable "textures" really are to film stocks -- the analogy seems a bit stretched -- but you'd think one advantage of not using an actual film stock, or maybe the only advantage, is not being stuck with it where you might have preferred other choices for this or that. And where you have those choices in post. Or are we going to dial in something new on the camera, for every shot?

Understood, that what's captured in a current model Alexa is not a blank slate, but it is at least designed to record data to allow vast leeway in post. If productions want to bake in "nostalgic" as surely as they bake in lighting or costumes, or a Promist filter (something to be gained by doing it optically, rather than in post?), great.

I think it's totally fine and welcome. If you want to think about it later in post or not at all, the default option will do just fine. But from what I understand is that it alters the way the data is stored which is very different from trying to achieve the same result by altering something that is already captured. I can easily see this being desired for specific higher end productions that really care about the image all the way from acquisition to delivery.

For web content I think generally nobody would care.

But on its face, this one seems a strange choice. It's one thing you don't need to impose from the outset, unlike so much else.

Yet it is already a choice. Choosing the actual camera is already because you prefer one sensor over the other. It's all very subjective. We tend to pick RED cameras because we like the sharp esthetic but for some shoots where we want a different 'softer' 'cinematic' or 'fashion' feel we sway towards ARRI. Now ARRI offers some of those characteristic within a single camera. I don't think that's so strange of a choice

But at this point, nobody knows if 'textures' make for qualities which can't be achieved in post or whether this feature is really just a concession to lower-end productions, where post-production is limited.

The other question is whether dialing in a texture -- as opposed to a more neutral profile -- is destructive in ways which a production might later regret. Looking at the samples in the Arri PDF, it's hard to see why you couldn't make the neutral profile look like the texture fx in post. The other way around might be more challenging.

Alot of you are conflating opinion with fact. Remember that just because you dont like a camera and how it looks doesn't mean that its a objectively bad choice. It seems like some of you are using your opinion as a basis to make a factual statement.

I'm just hoping BM has an updated 4k camera in the works.

Alot of you are conflating opinion with fact. Remember that just because you dont like a camera and how it looks doesn't mean that its a objectively bad choice. It seems like some of you are using your opinion as a basis to make a factual statement.

Reading through this post, I believe this is the fact. Everyone has an opinion but not all opinions lead to the facts. Said differently, this camera is likely for the big budget production that are shrinking daily against the broad non-union indie production worldwide which prefer to use cine cameras like BMD that are cost saving to their projects and yet capable of giving much, albeit not all, of what an Alexa can. The big guns will want texture so Alexa gave it to them. The little guns who want texture but don't get it in camera, well they get raw and have the flexibility to add them in post. Both solutions are fine. I don't bother with joining into this debate because I know I want to be an indie filmmaker, joining the millions worldwide as the industry democratize. I love that it is being democratize. So I stay with BMD, Canon, and at times RED as most other independents do. And if I or any of my colleague independent filmmakers want texture, they can have it in post. For the LA boys/gals shooting for big budget production, the Arri with their new texture capabilities, if that is what they want, it's what they get.

But as Local 600 DIT, I work on commercials, features, and TV and the only time ever see a Blackmagic camera on a union set is either as a crash cam, or for behind the scenes. The union commercial market in LA is currently Mini LF and Venice cams, with the Alexa Mini 3.4K hanging in as a "lower budget" camera. And the features I've been on for the last year have been Mini LF and Alexa 65. For this market, the Ursa is simply not on the radar, and bringing it up as an option would probably subject one to ridicule -- warranted or not.

If that's what they want, then good. Ask me if I care and I will tell you I don't. In the next 10 years, we will see less and less of this as camera technology advances and gets better, and cheaper. Probably exceeding what Alexa can do, IDK but what I know it will be very very close and much cheaper. And those Primadonna DITs, DP, or whoever is in the Local 600 union club will be out looking for jobs.

Yes, I know that we don't always get to choose how these relationships turn out, but in my experience, doing something that destructively limits the ability to u-turn later should only be done with the full understanding and consent of all involved.

Completely agree. Bake-in leads to a destructive workflow. The reason we have RAW is so that Post colorist can enhance the director's vision, look and feel, and not that of the DP. It also provides an flexibility for images that cannot be done in camera (without baking anything) at hand.

BTW, that's my opinion and it may not be the opinion of others, although I'm making my opinion base from facts. Of course, we all can agree to disagree. Yet it won't change the Arri 35 specs and texture feature, or who prefers Arri versus who prefers lower cost cine cam like BMD. But think of this as to why BMD cameras sell lot hotcakes to the indie filmmaking world and so much content is now available, far more than Hollywood can produce in its lifetime.

So, Alexa 35...meh.

I'm just hoping BM has an updated 4k camera in the works.

Me too. At least an updated firmware for the UMP 4.6K G2.

The other question is whether dialing in a texture -- as opposed to a more neutral profile -- is destructive in ways which a production might later regret.

This is the part that I don't really feel the same about. I don't see 'default' as a 'no look' texture. It is just as much texture as the other options. I see people here and there stating they don't feel the 35 isn't as 'smooth and filmic' as it's predecessors. If they didn't introduce the textures but had Cosmetic or any other as default look they might have claimed otherwise. I see it as a choice between different characteristics, not as an 'add texture' on top or not.

As to regret in post the only thing I can think of is perhaps a slightly more annoyed vfx artist because of slightly increased grain but nothing out of the ordinary.
Needless to say, it should be of course a careful consideration in pre production. Even ARRI advises to do tests yourself before usage.

Reading through this post, I believe this is the fact. Everyone has an opinion but not all opinions lead to the facts. Said differently, this camera is likely for the big budget production that are shrinking daily against the broad non-union indie production worldwide which prefer to use cine cameras like BMD that are cost saving to their projects and yet capable of giving much, albeit not all, of what an Alexa can. The big guns will want texture so Alexa gave it to them. The little guns who want texture but don't get it in camera, well they get raw and have the flexibility to add them in post. Both solutions are fine. I don't bother with joining into this debate because I know I want to be an indie filmmaker, joining the millions worldwide as the industry democratize. I love that it is being democratize. So I stay with BMD, Canon, and at times RED as most other independents do. And if I or any of my colleague independent filmmakers want texture, they can have it in post. For the LA boys/gals shooting for big budget production, the Arri with their new texture capabilities, if that is what they want, it's what they get.

I mean yeah at the end of the day we are on the blackmagic forum, so i can assume most of us are not working on budgets that would allow this camera at all. But the big issue i have is most of what people are saying is just pure speculation and opinion held together by random facts that dont even really support their statements.
Not calling anybody out, just stating a general thing i notice. But since apparently everyone here thinks they are a professional cinematographer, i think that its blinding them to the idea that what they are getting annoyed with in the camera has no influence on the final product in any meaningful way.

Like ive stated before, the camera does not matter at all if the story, creative vison, or crew is all ****. The bar that a camera needs to hit to be able to support the story is also way lower. While a good image matters, i can make a much more emotional and compelling image on a ******* potatoe. It doesn't matter how the texture applies or how pixels arrange themselves if its not supporting the story/vision of the project.

I get the idea about being a camera nerd and enjoying the speculation, but yall are getting to invested in things that dont matter, and while creating good images is fun, the amount of texture or whatever does not matter at all in the grand scheme of things (especially because you can dial anything you want in post, which makes the speculation even more pointless.)

While yes having things baked in camera is generally bad, if people really cared about that they would never shoot on film stock.

This is the part that I don't really feel the same about. I don't see 'default' as a 'no look' texture. It is just as much texture as the other options.

To give this dead nag one more kick, I'm just taking Arri at its word that "default" is a less stylized rendering of reality than, say, "Nostalgic".

You can argue that "default" is just as stylized or arbitrary as any other profile -- it wasn't handed down from heaven, after all -- but I'm not sure those are the terms of the debate, as Arri presents it. They seem pretty clear that textures depart from the camera's more neutral setting.

For the rest, the earth would stop turning if somebody, somewhere, wasn't claiming that the "filmic" qualities have all gone to hell. Based on highly compressed youtubes.....

One of the things that will be interesting to see is the Netflix official production guide for the Alexa 35 and what they say about the Textures feature. My strong hunch is that Netflix will have evaluated these textures, and that the use of them will be mentioned in the production guide -- and I'm pretty sure they will state the all these textures have been pre-approved to use on Netflix productions.

Hopefully when that happens, people here will calm down about this subject.

My strong hunch is that Netflix will have evaluated these textures, and that the use of them will be mentioned in the production guide -- and I'm pretty sure they will state the all these textures have been pre-approved to use on Netflix productions.

Hopefully when that happens, people here will calm down about this subject.

I wouldn't hold my breath. You evidently haven't read the threads here on Netflix approval processes.....

I swear this my last word on the matter, but your suggestion that the "texture" skeptics here are the ones who are hysterical is mighty prejudicial. It's the eagerness on the other side (yours) which some of us find unaccountable.

My strong hunch is that Netflix will have evaluated these textures, and that the use of them will be mentioned in the production guide -- and I'm pretty sure they will state the all these textures have been pre-approved to use on Netflix productions.

This is very presumptuous that this will ever happen. Maybe if you're in bed with Netflix on a Netflix original project. But how many really cares about that? You can always get your films in Netflix through other distributorship and not conform to one ounce of their guidelines. Besides a bad idea to bake in stuff, this is just as bad of a direction for Netflix if they even attempt to do so.

Like Alex said about story, I agree. And I think I am experience and professional enough to have an opinion of... that without a good story, good production design, good crew, good casting and director, the camera is the least of anyone's concern in the success or demise of the picture.

I swear this my last word on the matter, but your suggestion that the "texture" skeptics here are the ones who are hysterical is mighty prejudicial. It's the eagerness on the other side (yours) which some of us find unaccountable.

Am I eager? Hell yes! But it's totally accountable: I get paid to be eager about this and to research and know everything about this camera and be ready with answers on day one. So, I've been discussing the workflow everywhere I can. I've had DPs already asking me about the textures because they want to test this feature for their next projects. It's my job to have the answers, so yes, I'm super eager. And so far, none of the cinematographers I've talked to about the A35 have been "texture skeptics." They have all been either "texture curious" or "texture enthusiastic."

I’ve already seen posts on CML from Arri specialists inferring that textures MIGHT come to be done in post but it would require the companies making post software to come on board. So it seems the myth of having to do it in camera isn’t really true.

I’m not knocking the idea of textures as a feature. Which by the way sure seems like flavours of noise reduction and re-introduction. Right now a lot of companies are paying very expensive per episode license costs for high end film emulations.
https://www.livegrain.com/

And even recording back to film itself.

Locking in a look has ALWAYS been possible. You can do it right now with a LUT if you really want to

You can still even today grossly underexpose your shots and do the same thing as Gorden famously did on Godfather…

It’s the idea that this is being sold as a feature where you’re doing something that’s baked in as a way of flipping of “producers” or “directors” insuring your creative integrity that seems off to me.

I’d much prefer we have a better workflow for managing looks through post.

How about we get rid of the archaic CDL process. It has so many inherent problems that I find so incredibly frustrating to the image making process and achieving dailies consistency.

JB

You can still even today grossly underexpose your shots and do the same thing as Hall famously did on Godfather…

You mean Gordy, not Connie! But you know that.

I remember being fascinated by what he did on the Godfather, as he described it (I think?) in 'Masters of Light'. He underexposed everything by about 2/3rds of a stop and then push processed -- because in his view, the projected image achieves a kind of translucence if you do it that way. Long live photo-chemical....

Something I don't think digital can manage, even with "Textures".

You mean Gordy, not Connie! But you know that.

Flay me now !

I’ve been talking a lot about Mr Hall lately, my current Key Grip used to be his dolly grip.

JB

Well, he's another one who loved low light. 'Fat City'.....

I generally look at the Textures as a tool that will help create a look. Cinematographers and Directors will test the different Textures together to make a decision as to what they want for any moment in a film/show. They'll present their tests to the Producers and with everyone in agreement go with that choice. No different from the past with testing different film stocks and choosing the stock right for the scene. And, that's the key: treat Textures like choosing film stock.

Yes, you can still go without a Texture and then apply something in post. But if you want to commit to a look with a Texture you can. I wouldn't be surprised if the Textures can even be applied in Post eventually with software like DaVinci Resolve.

I'm impressed with what Arri did with this camera. It fixed a lot of hardware complaints I had about the Alexa Mini, like the placement of the Audio Input, the lack of on body menu control, and placement of the CFast Card Slot with relation to placement of a Battery Plate that had to be added after the fact. I like having the battery mount right on the camera. They made a lot of improvements and still kept a small and compact form factor. And, you can still use the Viewfinder to dig deeper into the menu, but having quick assess to menu options on the body without having the plug in the Viewfinder is a huge bonus. Plus the new Wireless Control is far better.

So I'm pretty thrilled obviously.

Something happened to an original reply I made in this topic. A message came up along the lines of somebody had already replied to the topic and did I really want to reply also. Two reply boxes full of identical text came up and then vanisho gonesky. Maybe it is there somewhere but I can't find it. so if I have served up the same dinner twice, then please forgive me.
---------------
If anyone can remember back to the days of the 35mm groundglass film emulators on 1/3" and 2/3" video cameras, a debate of "because I can" versus "when I should" then occurred.

The signature of newby users was the paper-thin depths of field and focus errors. Baked in effects present the old "you cannot take the salt back out of the stew" dilemma.

The cost of the ARRI system naturally demands the companion investment in all the other production value-adding. The 35mm groundglass adapter users were predominantly low budget operators.

The cheaper camera will always be tainted by all the other compromises which are made to stay within a low budget as some of the dross created during the 35mm groundglass era demonstrated.

With appropriate production value adding, the old 35mm groundglass work was good. If anyone can remember back far enough, the movie "Monsters" and the actioner "Merantau" were shot with groundglass film emulators.

Antony Dod Mantle shot "Dear Wendy" with a 35mm groundglass adaptor.

Once people do their homework on the toolbox the new ARRI cameras offer, train themselves, prepare well, invest appropriately in all the companion crafts, then maintain an organised creative discipline, I wonder where is the real problem?

There have been a few replies talking about adding Textures in post. Honestly after doing some more deep dives, I honestly cannot see how that would happen. Maybe a LUT that mimics the texture, however you will still have a different noise pattern and look. That's because Textures are applied before the Debayer process. Once this Debayer process happens everything changes and the pre-debater process look could not happen the same way..

However I remain excited to play with this over the next year and see how it all plays out.

There have been a few replies talking about adding Textures in post. Honestly after doing some more deep dives, I honestly cannot see how that would happen.

I don't see why not Justin. This whole 'textures' thing is new to me - I had to look it up - though I can see it's going to become the new obsession and buzzword now . Is it not simply detail/coreing/sharpening whatever, plus the ability to add (and 'bake' in) simulated levels of 'grain'? Presumably, in order to reduce the effects of inorganic almost unnecessary, and often unpleasing, hyper-resolution we are able to achieve now?

In which case, speaking with my post hat on, it can be denoised, degrained or conversely supplemented in post quite easily. It has long been understood, and practiced, that adding grain to digital video, in post can both give it a more organic feel and add to perceptual 'sharpness'.

I imagine with this new Alexa, camera tests, in co-operation and harmony with post, will be conducted, as they always have been, in order to achieve the look that the creators are after and there will be no conflict because a DP wishes to use and 'bake' a particular 'texture'. It's just another tool and I think Arri have again delivered a top notch camera with it.

There have been a few replies talking about adding Textures in post. Honestly after doing some more deep dives, I honestly cannot see how that would happen.

https://cml.news/g/cml-general/message/11054


“ Textures might come to post at some point, but that’ll require some tweaks from the grading software manufacturers. ”

JB

I would have thought Arri was immune to the typical YouTuber hype, but I guess not. They invited Potato Jet of all people to play with it. I'm not knocking him, but I just don't think his audience is the target for a camera like this.

I would have thought Arri was immune to the typical YouTuber hype, but I guess not. They invited Potato Jet of all people to play with it. I'm not knocking him, but I just don't think his audience is the target for a camera like this.

That guy has been YouTuber spokesperson for Arri for a while now. Has Arri-sponsored videos for Signature Primes/Zooms, as well as the LF bodies. I'm sure Arri had him in mind for this camera.

Personally I don't mind it; he does seem more knowledgeable than the average YouTube crowd, and if anything he actually lets the experts speak more than himself...

He's always positive, I'll give him that. I haven't followed him regularly and wasn't aware of the cooperation with Arri. I somehow doubt his typical audience (other YouTube creators?) has followed in his footsteps though.

His "typical audience" has um ... dreams ... of working up to using such cameras. Every. Night. Of. Their. Lives.

And in reality, some will. YouTube has become sort of a "minor league" training ground for many working their way up in video.

Sent from my SM-S908U using Tapatalk

I think we all should get back to talking about Blackmagic cameras.

I would have thought Arri was immune to the typical YouTuber hype, but I guess not. They invited Potato Jet of all people to play with it. I'm not knocking him, but I just don't think his audience is the target for a camera like this.

That guy has been YouTuber spokesperson for Arri for a while now. Has Arri-sponsored videos for Signature Primes/Zooms, as well as the LF bodies. I'm sure Arri had him in mind for this camera.

Personally I don't mind it; he does seem more knowledgeable than the average YouTube crowd, and if anything he actually lets the experts speak more than himself...

He owns an Arri Classic too.

How about we get rid of the archaic CDL process. It has so many inherent problems that I find so incredibly frustrating to the image making process and achieving dailies consistency.

I am curious to learn more about the problems you have encountered and what method that you propose to replace it.
I recently worked a production that didn’t use CDL, but instead created a new LUT for every setup. It was quite a headache to manage in post.

I think we all should get back to talking about Blackmagic cameras.

There may be nothing wrong with this discussion giving Blackmagic something to aspire to. Meanwhile impecunious folk like myself play the secondhand rose game with old BM cameras. If they had not been made and sold, then I might still be trying to keep up with a Sony PD150.

what method that you propose to replace it.
I recently worked a production that didn’t use CDL, but instead created a new LUT for every setup. It was quite a headache to manage in post.

I've worked on shows where instead of CDLs we were able to send Resolve project files created on set for each day to the lab, which gave us more flexibility -- and among other things, allowed us to get more texture into the dailies. But of course you need a lab that has this kind of relationship with the DP and is flexible about this workflow. Something like this Resolve workflow would be more ideal IMO, but of course it would require everyone to be on the same software etc. whereas CDLs are more cross platform.

But I think it's these kind of situations why DPs are excited about the new Textures feature, because it would allow for a little creative decision to go into the RAW file underneath the CDLs.

This seems a little like an ego thing. While i can see a cinematographer wanting his or her creative “texture/look” choices to make it to post. At the end of the day, in a standard production environment isn’t it the people who hire a cinematographer the ones that should make the final “look/texture” decision? Or at least a combined creative decision? I can’t see myself taking that type of creative control unless i had a conversation with the powers at be.

On the other hand I can also see if the cinematographer is trusted and or has a great relationship with the powers at be, then of course he/she can get away with making sure their “look” makes it through to post without consultation.

It was just weird hearing the Arri rep say cinematographers can now have their texture/look baked in for more control. It leaves the door open for a lot of shenanigans. Either way not a big deal. This camera and new workflow will be adopted by most major productions. I think the new camera footage looks good.

I just wasn’t blown away by anything I’ve seen from the reveal. The main selling point in my opinion is 17 stops of dynamic range. And the increased sensitivity. Anything that makes a cinematographer or colorist job easier is a win in my book. Blackmagic you’re next up to bat!

cinematographers can now have their texture/look baked in for more control

Again, I'd just want to point out that the "Texture" feature and a "look" are two separate things. A "look" is a CDL and/or a LUT, and no one is talking about burning that in. A "texture" in this case is how the camera interprets signal to noise on a sensor that creates a log image. When you shoot on a Sony Venice, you end up with an inherent noise pattern and inherent sensor characteristics, that get "baked in". If you decide to shoot on a Canon instead your decision now bakes in another noise pattern and other set of characteristics. If a decision is made to shoot on film, a different noise patten gets baked in -- and you have a choice between different stocks and of course 35mm, S-16, 16mm, or S-8, all different baked in noise patterns depending on what decisions are made.

With the Alexa 35 it's like you have a choice of shooting on 5 different cameras with 5 different noise patterns and sensor characteristics all packed into one.

Again, I'd just want to point out that the "Texture" feature and a "look" are two separate things. A "look" is a CDL and/or a LUT, and no one is talking about burning that in. A "texture" in this case is how the camera interprets signal to noise on a sensor that creates a log image. When you shoot on a Sony Venice, you end up with an inherent noise pattern and inherent sensor characteristics, that get "baked in". If you decide to shoot on a Canon instead your decision now bakes in another noise pattern and other set of characteristics. If a decision is made to shoot on film, a different noise patten gets baked in -- and you have a choice between different stocks and of course 35mm, S-16, 16mm, or S-8, all different baked in noise patterns depending on what decisions are made.

With the Alexa 35 it's like you have a choice of shooting on 5 different cameras with 5 different noise patterns and sensor characteristics all packed into one.

Forgive me, but where exactly did you get the information you're just "pointing out"? All they're saying at Arri is that the textures are like "digital film stocks". And that the processing is done at an early stage, which would make a post process a bit more difficult.

You haven't seen real life samples. You haven't examined differences between the default texture and the stylized textures. You haven't assayed the pliability of default v. stylized textures. Are they all equally adjustable? I don't know, and neither do you. Arri must know, but they're not saying.

And how do you know a texture isn't a "look"? It *is* burned in, after all, and if it doesn't have a "look" what's the point of it? That's a rhetorical question: nobody's seen it so nobody knows.

Maybe textures really are the cat's meow. But until someone's actually seen it.....?

A "look" is a CDL and/or a LUT

A "texture" in this case is how the camera interprets signal to noise on a sensor that creates a log image.

And how do you know a texture isn't a "look"? It *is* burned in, after all, and if it doesn't have a "look" what's the point of it?

Okay, I think I understand where went wrong with my arguments. I was attempting to clarify the issue based on my experience along with the information that was provided by Arri Withe Papers. But I now realize that that was not the point of this discussion. My apologies.

I finally got to play with this camera a bit, as well as test some Raw files from it -- and of course played a bit with the Textures feature to see what it's doing. I think DPs who test out the camera at different ISOs with different Textures will see a pretty clear way of how this feature can fit into their image capture process. It's somewhat similar to how we would decide to use different ISOs on an Alexa Mini or LF to create different image characteristics -- and on Sony Venice, sometimes we would shoot at the 2500 ISO base, just to get the image characteristics of that mode. The Textures feature on the A35 kinda takes that idea, separates it from the ISO setting, and adds additional control options.

Now that the Alexa 35 is out in the wild, has anyone done a comparison between it and the Ursa 12k?

I just watch a comparison video of the Alexa LF vs Alexa 35 and the later looks insanely good, and noticeably better.

I'd love to see what skin tones and color look like on the 12k vs the Alexa 35....

I just watch a comparison video of the Alexa LF vs Alexa 35 and the later looks insanely good, and noticeably better..

In controlled circumstances, audiences will have a hard time distinguishing any number of digital cameras, not just Alexas or the 35, from 35mm, much less from each other. Apart from the additional stops, what was so remarkable about the Alexa 35? And seen where? And how graded?

I'd love to see what skin tones and color look like on the 12k vs the Alexa 35....

After grading? Here's guessing you'll need mighty keen eyes.

I can't believe this thread.

My guess on the baked-in looks is that for series TV/streaming productions, once a style is established, post work may become faster and less costly.

As for 4.6K, so long as it continues to live on, the patched up Ursa Mini 4.6K I carry around might still be in with a chance.