Um...models walking at night? I guess "night" is used loosely here. It makes me wonder what they're going to call shots that happen after the sun goes down. It looks good.
Mariano, people often point out how the slightest bit of camera movement and soft focus result in rarely getting 4K pixels' worth of pristine information and deem 4K TVs a waste of money but never acknowledge the same would be true for 2K captured footage on 1080p displays.
Should we all be watching 720p TVs because of it? Wouldn't a person be just as much of a moron for owning a 1080p TV?
You seem to be treating the word "standard" as if there can only be one. It's true for something that has "the only game in town" status. There are two standards for HD - 720p and 1080p. Whatever camera you prefer to shoot on records at 23.976, 24, 25, 29.97 and 30 fps, all of which are standard frame rates. 2K for theatrical projection is a standard. 4K, when it reaches critical mass, will also be a standard. I guess what determines the standard status is the degree to which it's used in relationship to whatever else is available that accomplishes the same (or similar) thing. Once 4K rules the roost, 2K may eventually be known as an old standard.
Btw, I believe skintone rendering and color, how the sensor handles different light temperatures at once and color response all fall under color. And highlight falloff can be filed under DR. But yes, the other things you mention are important considerations. However, I'd argue none of them take precedence over color, dynamic range and (a suitable minimum, depending on the need) resolution when designing or choosing a cinema camera. A camera's motion cadence may be a deal breaker, but only after it satisfies the "holy trinity" first, in the vast majority of cases, methinks.
What he's saying is, as an exercise, after performing an extreme (and impractical, btw) set of operations, he could get the sensor to register ("see" - in quotes like he originally wrote it) all 21 stops of the Xyla chart. I'm sure, given the procedure, the same outcome could be achieved for the Alexa. But, how many people do you know that frame average their footage? I think it's assumed the reader would take the context in which this specific test was performed into consideration. I guess some people got the wrong idea about what it represents. Still, how can one blame some RED fans for doing that when some RED critics are guilty of the same thing?
I said I don't think Phil Holland was an EMPLOYEE of RED. He may have been contracted out or compensated for work he's done with them over the years, but those aren't the same thing. Just because you DP a spot for Pepsi doesn't mean you're an employee of theirs or OFFICIALLY represent the company in any capacity. By your logic, the majority of the film and video industry officially speaks for every company they've been contracted to do work for.
I haven't really been defending RED. I'm challenging what I believe to be flawed arguments, including yours. RED is just the topic of conversation. You tend to treat statements as if they were NECESSARILY made to the exclusion of all other possibilities. In effect, you're arguing a point that was never made, which makes me want to address that flaw in addition to making actual points of my own. I just don't think your points are as salient as you think they are. What can I say? I like a good debate, but that's all this is to me.
Why do professional recording studios record audio at 24 bit, 96KHz when CDs are 16 bit, 44.1KHz and AACs and MP3s are highly compressed formats?
Having a high quality, high resolution master is never a bad idea, regardless of how it will be distributed. "I Love Lucy" was shot on film but destined for 1950s NTSC television. Those film masters can be scanned at 4K and look way better than any shot-on-video Norman Lear sitcom of the 1970s when viewed on a UHD set.
Yours is a question for the movie studios but I imagine they'll claim it has to do with costs. That doesn't change the fact that scanned S35mm film comes in around 4K and its resolution is what the film industry primarily standardized on a long time ago.
As usual, people only quote the part that supports their argument and ignore the rest. The very NEXT sentence is, "Are those "Usable Stops"? No, not exactly, but it does tell a bit of the story." Why wouldn't you include that, Nick? You had to have seen it. Also, the word "see" is in quotations. Even before that: "I wanted to see exactly what I could dig out of a Weapon image and the Xyla-21. Which led to a rather ludicrous ISO 102400 pushed test using Frame Averaging." Frame Averaging. ISO 102400. The camera only goes to ISO 12800. He's clearly NOT talking about real-world use and you know it. And while Phil Holland has a close relationship with RED, I don't think he's ever been an employee.
I'm not bothered by people calling RED out when they deserve it. I've got posts on Reduser where I'm doing that. They're not perfect. I do tend to have a problem with bias and misinformation. I'll defend any camera against those. Wouldn't you?
What's happening in these comments is another scenario where Arri does something laudable and people see that as an opportunity to bash RED, as if one thing has something to do with the other, which has never made much sense to me. It's like people are stuck in a 5 year old loop. I guess I'm surprised that's still a thing.
I'll put it this way. JVC has never a made a camera I was even remotely interested in, for any type of shooting. However, I don't feel the need to harp on it every chance I get. Not so with the RED haters. I don't get on their case to defend RED. I get on their case because they're being irrational about RED. In this case I'm merely pointing out the hypocrisy of the logic in these comments. It doesn't follow. If RED sucks because they don't have the nominations, then so should every other camera that wasn't nominated, right? Not to some folks, apparently.
At the end of the day, RED makes options. There's no reason to get upset that they came out with an 8K camera. If you don't need 8K, you don't have to buy it or shoot on it. When Kodak announced a new Super8 film camera last year, people lost their shit over the cost of the media versus the recording time. Huh? Don't buy one. Problem solved. That's the thing about options - they're optional.