Відео

Set number 2 before you reveal. I nailed it. But I have used Cooke's for 30+ years. Jsut subscribed as well.

הכל הרבה יותר פשוט: אם, אתן לך 10 סרטים אקראיים לצפייה. האם תוכל להגיד על איזה סט עדשות צולם כל אחד מהסרטים? ברור לכולם מה תהיה התוצאה. אם אתה לא מסוגל להבדיל את המוצר המועדף עליך מיתר המוצרים מה בעצם הופך אותו למיוחד. המראה של הקוק…כן המראה שלא תזהה ותוכל להצביע עליהם בוודאות…. נ.ב על תסתכל למעלה צולם על עדשות אטלס. מה ההפרש בין אטלס לעדשות hawk?

Yep, #1 looke better.

Did you guys do lower light test, outside? And you mean Noise, and not Grain, right?

And the Bull Shitz wasted everybodys precious lifes time video. Goes to.....

Knew about the lenses, became a fan when you said " you threw in 8 mile and Em because I love em!

I liked the Zeiss Super speeds better. I didn't like this yellow tint (even if it's easy to get rid of in post) and the bokeh of the zeiss was funky. Also, I don't think you achieved the famous cooke look in that footage. Is it overrated? Well, if you want to get a great look you don't need such pricey lenses in this era, that's the truth.

gonna subscribe because of the krabby patty reference

The real difference is the smoothness of focus falloff. As for added warmth, it's irrelevant to anyone who realizes that you can just add a touch of warmth in post, very very very easily, and that aspect can be matched identically with any lens.

Please do a 4k upload :)

What olpf did you use on the dragon? Also what debayer did you use? Please switch to ipp2 and don't use any denoising

3:48 whats your playback monitor?

I was really expecting to have no idea but the Cookes stood out immediately. People always talk about the 3D pop, which I assume is some sort of distortion. But it makes the subject pop forward on the screen which I noticed immediately on the second set. I do think in the context of a film in the varying shots and conditions, without a side by side the difference is very minor.

I guessed right as I just assumed the shallow DOF of the first cam was from a Full frame sensor, which was likely your cheaper camera. I assumed the higher end camera was likely an Alexa mini hence less DOF. Other thing I noticed immediately was the sharpness of the second image. I think texture is often a giveaway between an Alexa and lower end camera but that doesn't show up on UA-cam at least not at 1080p. I think art/location budget should come before camera budget, though I do love the look of ARRI cameras. A pro colorist makes up for a lot though. I also think the Alexa 35 look out of camera isn't that nice. The Alev3 sensor just gives this more filmic saturated look with just the conversion LUT. The ARRI 35 is so neutral its almost boring. It collects such a huge range of color and dynamic range and is really meant for pro post treatment I believe.

Curious if the Varicam is doing more processing as I know the RAW from that camera is known to be noisier where as ARRI Prores doesn't really have any processing (noise reduction) and looks pretty identical to the RAW output. Of course the ARRI 35 is different in terms of options for noise reduction at high ISO. Varicam definitely seems like a solid choice, too bad they really fell off in terms of market demand. Looks to perform much better than any red Camera besides the Monstro or Raptor.

It's a bit odd because I guessed your Arri shot because of its inherent sharpness. But it's a logical sharpness for that Arri camera, even with that Canon kit lens! I do also feel that lenses, as digital sensors are improved, lesser their importance on the overall image quality: They obviously condition the focal distance on the image, but don't compromise that much an incredible sensor's image (added character overcomplicates a bit my statement, with for example an old fisheye lens with an extreme image). I can discuss at a degree the ugliness of chromatic aberration on bokeh, but i feel it's not that subjective what a perfect lens can show of the actual sensor's dynamic range and codecs. P.D: It would have been awesome to pair the FX3 with the Ninja V (the famous "The Creator" rig) to match the 12bits mark and data rate on each camera. Also great video, btw! 👌

Ultra primes are so underrated but they are quickly becoming my go to lens.

What is your take on the Arri Master Primes vs Arri Signature Primes?

If you don't know how to identify the Cooke Look then you are not a cinematographer. It's the most distinguishable lens you will find in cinema.

Soo... you purposely tried to make the Alexa look worse, by using a bad lens on it.... got it... what's the point of this video again? Dude you are a

Lucki instrumental on point though 👌🏽

Sick video! Whats that clapper app you're using? 1:46

I thought number one looked better. I believe that even with an $2400 camera you can create beautiful images if you know how to light your shoots.

With Cooke lenses it’s the separation that they’re famous for. Adjust your T stop so your subject is in focus to the edges, for example the ear and hairline. Make sure your subject has got at least a 5 to 1 ratio of background to foreground. Then you’ll see the 3d like separation between subject and background. That’s the Cooke look. I think the Cooke lenses have a built in aberration that makes bokeh seem different or wrong and creates this “character”. Good examples are street night scenes in Mr. Robot. The characters sometimes look like 3d cutouts. Cheers…

FX3 looked far better.. especially in low light which is very surprising

I’m actually kind of excited about this channel. I just discovered today. I look forward to your next video.

$4000 is a low-end camera? Maybe this channel isn’t for me. 😂

“gear doesn’t matter” proceeds to use a lens that costs 6 times as much as the body 💀

it was the sony blue that gave it away for me

I'm pretty into the cooke look but I'll 100% agree that its vague as hell, the older Ser I, II & III lenses & their vintage zooms are what really made cooke such a strong brand, and those lenses are pretty flawed, CA, breathing, busy bokeh, many of them are pretty soft & and a huge lack of consistency. But one thing I always like about cooke lenses that this video kinda gets at is that they just look nice on people and their design today still centers on making people look good over optical perfection

All film-making equipment is "overrated" until we're lucky enough to own it.🙃

bro no way you started playing New Drank by Lucki 😭😭

Not really a good test unless you have identical glass on the bodies imo. Good glass on a budget sensor will always look better than bad glass on a cinema sensor. If you put shitty tires on a Ferrari it won’t drive well. It’s a good video about how important lens choice is, but without being precise in the test about sensor comparison this feels a bit click-baity.

Sony looked better tho lol

Bruh include a shoot with the same lens and diffusion at the end. We get your point but we also want to see the ground truth.

The Dynamic Range on the Alexa 👌🏻the fastest way to recognize

Dear Brendan, hope this finds you well. Please export and upload in 4K next time, thanks! - Best Rugrats, Association of 4K Monitor Owners of America

For me personally second setup looked more movie-like, because of depth of field. One thing which we lose on this wide aperture hype UA-cam train is that although it looks pleasant to the eye, that goes in a different direction of what a movie is trying to achieve. By consciously bringing depth in to the frame we add context and meaning to the scene. I guess that’s also one of the reason these cameras are hard to compare due to sensor size differences. That was a great test for the eye, like that ❤

As tech keeps getting better I wonder what the motivations are behind shooting on pricier equipment.

Bm6kpro vs alexa! thats a tough one. the bm with dehanser gets a crazy close image. just the rolling shutter gives it away.

It was obvious to tell the difference between 10 bit and 12 bit color. Next time you should throw in the Blackmagic CC 6K for 12 bit against 12 bit.

The first set of lenses seemed to be more color accurate and detailed. The second set seemed a dull and less detailed.

Great comparison! Camera tech has come a long way🤘

lol I immediately was wondering why one camera had a much deeper DoF. It looks like you also spent more time on the color grade for the FX3 bringing out some of the subtle variations in skin tones.

Lighting and lenses are more important than the sensor. Option 1 looks way better. Seeing that 18-55 on the Alexa made me want to die

Please would be great CP3 lenses report

You almost got me. That second cam was to sharp and that is what gave it away for me.

Not gonna lie you got us in the first half

Bullshit... If U so smart why u don't use same lens ? No sans on this video, to be honest...

Thanks for testing the Varicam. I just bought one for the texture in the sensor alone.