Happy you spoke on this - I have one on the way, and most of the footage/color I've seen from the 35 looks more separated and digital than the mini. I prefer the...muddier(?) texture of the mini. Thanks for making these LUTs, well done
Thansk Hudson - yes I've been amazed at the silence on this online knowing how much the average Alexa owner loved the old image pipeline for it's colour and filmic look straight out of the box. Appreciate the comment.
you're absolutely right, alexa 35 to me looked like a well shot Sony A7SIII, it was just too digital and not that cinematic movement that we have come to love with Amira, Mini or Mini LF, if i had all the budget i would still stick with the LF
Yeah thankfully we can grade the colour back to that classic Alexa look with the right tools and with some work but the mindset shift over at ARRI was quite a surprise (accuracy over beauty). Nevertheless - it's still my fav camera of all time.
There’s something about older digital cinema sensors and colors that feel incredibly more filmic than a lot of the modern cameras. I’m talking about the Alexa Classic, Mini, the original Blackmagics, even the old REDs. Nice character, colors, texture, and rolloff.
The Alexa 35's new color science fixes a lot of the issues that we had with the old color science, where we did a great job with the tools available but we'd pushed them as far as we could. The new color science uses a new mathematical model that's much more perceptually accurate. The biggest difference that I've seen is in any color that has green or magenta, as we are now able to match the perceptual brightness of these hues whereas before we could get the hue right but they would be brighter or darker than the human eye would see them. Also, as you noticed, hues don't drift nearly as much with exposure changes as you would see in the older cameras. This is a big deal in HDR, as it shortens grading times considerably. We always go for the hard stuff, and it's really difficult to make a camera that produces colors this close to how the human eye perceives them. You can always get back to the old look if you want it, and indeed you can get to any look more easily than you could with the old color science. The old color won a lot of awards, but it's looking backward at where we've come from in terms of technology. and tools. The new color science looks forward to the fact that the way we look at images is going to become more and more critical as displays become higher in contrast and dynamic range. We want to make sure cinematographers have all the control they may want and need, and this new processing is a huge improvement. It's easy to make "pretty" color as this does not have to be accurate. It's harder to make accurate color that's also pretty. We think we've done that this time around. So far we've only made this kind of change once every 12 years, so we'll see what happens in another 12. :)
@@chinafunnytao2523 I'm not sure what you mean. Every camera system uses math to translate sensor data into color information. Our new math comes the closest I've seen to a camera creating an image that matches human vision. That means you can light by eye and have a lot of confidence that the colors you see will translate well to the recorded image. As for more "digital feeling," I don't see that at all. For me, "digital" means seeing the most common color rendering errors that happen using the old mathematical tools that everyone uses (failures in capturing accurate reds, yellows, greens, purples and blues) or seeing that a camera system can't render colors that film can (like rich cyans). Reveal does an incredible job at capturing all those colors accurately. What I've found is that people interpret Reveal as feeling "digital" because they are too used to seeing what other color sciences render incorrectly. When they see Reveal they think it looks "wrong" even though it looks more "right" than anything that has come before it. "The art is not mathematic..." We're not in the business of making art. That's your job. What we do is present you with a color palette that gives you the greatest latitude and ease of use to create the images that you want to create. Ask a colorist what they think of working with Alexa 35 footage. Every single one that I've spoken to says they can do more, and more quickly, than ever before. Judging a camera purely by its default look doesn't make any sense to me. That's primarily a technical display transform. There's a little bit of artistry in there, but that's not its primary goal. The true test is how easily you can push it to create the look you want. Film is a commercial art form, and we spend a lot of time to make sure you can get to where you want to go by spending as little money as possible. That usually results in more creative opportunities in the long run.
@@art_adams_arri Well, I try to explain my point: yes, maybe the new generation ARRI algorithm is closer to vision....but it is farther away from the texture and oily feel of film, more like digital video. I have worked with many cameras and the arri 35 is too close to the SONY fx series, even the A series.😁
@@art_adams_arri When people walk into a movie theater, what they expect to see is a feeling and visual impact different from reality. If people go into a movie theater and see "reality," why should they pay to go into a movie theater?
@@art_adams_arri The particle function added to ARRI 35 has been easy to implement for a long time in the past, but why did it appear on ARRI 35? My personal guess: ARRI executives must have realized something was wrong after first time seeing the image of the 35 camera, but there was no chance to correct it, so they added the function of simulating film grain and texture to the 35 camera to weaken the excessive The senses of digital video. Haha, hope I'm wrong....
I was at Arri’s introduction event of the Alexa 35 at the DGA in Los Angeles. They screened most of the commissioned films shot with the 35 in the perfectly calibrated theater at the DGA. I immediately disliked the color of the Alexa 35. I spoke to another attendee who felt the same way. I posted about this on a very well known DP’s website, and subsequently found out this DP took a look at the 35 at Arri in Burbank during its development, and decided to stick with the camera he has been using for a few years to shoot an upcoming film. I don’t understand or agree with Arri’s departure from the color science that they created for the previous generation, and I am glad to finally see someone with the guts to put together a review like this. I am pretty sure Hollywood is not jumping on the new color science or perhaps even the camera itself, despite its many, many great on set technical innovations.
Yeah sorry for the delayed response - I had the exact same feeling when I saw the first footage from the Alexa 35 and was surprised that no one online was talking about it. To be honest, it was a little nerve racking to be the first one to sort of break ranks and confess I wasn't the hugest fan of the colour, which for the past decade had been one of Arri's main drawcards along with it's DR and plug-and-play user friendly menu/workflow. It seems so strange to me that they didn't just provide a pair of LUTs in camera; LUT 1 to recreate their legacy colour science and LUT 2 for the new REVEAL colour. That way, you get everything you love about the old Arri cameras plus more - nothing would be lost - there would only be gain.
@@phantomlutsOwn an Alexa 4:3 and totally agree. So weird how this video is the only place I’m seeing this discussion. I’ve done a lot of testing and always find the REVEAL version of the footage to look much more bland, shallow and digital. The few movies shot on A35 also look pretty bland. I think it’s partly due to how they’re marketing the camera. The recent announcement of Alexa 35 Live and other comments from Arri make it clear they’re trying to sell the A35 to everyone, not just cinema. I doubt live sports have much interest in everything looking like an old filmstock. Maybe the LF replacement will be more cinema focused and bring a more classic Alexa LUT/colour pipeline with it.
This is crazy. I felt that instantly from the reveal footage of the camera, but everyone was telling me I was wrong. Something about the color seemed off.
I have recently bought an old Arri (Alexa SXT) and have also downloaded and graded a few clips from the Aexa 35. I was surprised when I first got the Alexa SXT how saturated and poppy some of the colours were, how they changed depending on exposure and that you have to be careful how far, for example, you can underexpose skin tones before they get a bit reddish and muddy to my eye. The new Alexa is definitely less saturated but the colours hold up better with even big changes in exposure. Funnily enough, I prefer the 3.2K/3.4K of the SXT in terms of resolution as I find the 4.6K a bit detailed at times, but you can soften it with filters. Both cameras have their beauty, but neither are ideal, in my view! I would want to shoot the 35 with a special kind of LUT, as I do with the SXT, just a very different LUT in both cases.
Yes see I like that 'shifting sands' dynamic with the colours on the Alev3 sensor - it reminds me of film - it adds that 'dimensionality' I kept talking about where the colours twist and weave in unexpected ways to give the image a more non-linear, chemical feeling. It feels maybe a bit more 'impresionistic' rather than accurate but I like that personally.
I feel for Arri - the ALEV sensor was basically a one in a million and probably never needed to be changed. It's a huge step to move away from that. However I can also see some huge benefits with the new sensor - it looks super clean so no unwanted colors - so maybe the 35 is a DIT heavy camera.
Thanks for sharing this Joel. This was very helpful to see as I was concerned over the Alexa35 color not measuring up to the original AlevIII sensor, and feeling more video-like. I’ve spoken with several people that have preferred the look of the Mini to the A35 and even heard of a feature choosing the mini over the A35 because of this look difference. This caused me to put a pause on whether I wanted to hang onto my A35 pre-order or not. But seeing what you’re able to do with your LUT to match the Mini gives me a lot more confidence that it can still have that filmic look with the right LUT/grade. There are a lot more gradations and hues in the Mini emulation that feels more filmic to me then the higher contrast, more muted LUT from the A35. I do like a desaturated image, but there is something about the original A35 LUT that isn’t as interesting and complex that you would expect for a $90k camera. Now of course it depends on the project, but overall I think the look you’ve been able to create is a much better starting place to shoot with. Thanks Joel for putting this together and for also speaking up about something that most people have been silent on publicly.
Thanks Peter - as I say in the video, it really is an incredible camera, it's just the colour that takes a bit of work. So I felt depositing a few weeks of work into a simple LUT would offer the legacy colour as a viable alternative would be a project worth pursuing.
I’ll add that I noted the development of the previous sensor and color science happened at a time when Arri were trying to sell the camera to an industry that would compare the camera to film and Kodak stocks. Sadly in my opinion, Arri has moved to what they consider a technical improvement of of film’s rendition of color. It may be, when you examine the data. My eye is what matters, and I think Arri really dropped the ball with “Reveal”.
I am a big fan of stereograms, and I don't know if anyone has noticed the amount of perfect and satisfying stereograms this guy has put together. Bravo
To see them, watch the video on your phone, portrait mode, then kind of cross your eyes until you see four images, then make the two in the middle merge into one and it becomes a stereogram.@@phantomluts
I think this misses the whole point though, the camera isn't recording in 709. Never was. Just one way to view it. If Arri wanted to spend all their RND time matching the 709 transform of the new camera to the mini and mini LF they easily could've done exactly what you did. They instead spent 12 years of RND to make a better sensor with better color accuracy, fidelity, and more dynamic range than anyone can touch. 709 has never been meant to be the deliverable, and yes "out of camera" color on the Alexa is what has drawn people to it, but also none of the movies and commercials that are blowing you away are showing you the 709 image. 709 is just a stepping stone in the image making process, never the final destination. Saying "but hows the color" feels odd, when it's very literally the best color science to exist, even though you may wish it was slightly warmer and more saturated. I don't know anyone shooting on the Alexa 35 that isn't using custom viewing luts for on set, and then coloring the footage. You're not/should definitely not be shooting on Alexa (35, mini or mini LF for that matter) just to throw 709 on the image and call it a day.
Is the emulation LUT a direct LogC4 to Rec709 LUT, or is it a log-to-log LUT that can be part of the standard A35 log-to-log workflow? For those who wish to work with LogC3 color pipeline, it's fairly easy to just grade the Alexa 35 through a CST node in either LogC3 or Cineon Film Log. Both approaches deliver an amazing grade out of the A35. I feel overall that we're still in early stages of what can be achieved with LogC4 and Reveal color science and I've seen some amazing grades coming out of the big labs in LA. It's certainly a learning curve, but if working with Reveal is not giving you the results you hope for, shooting A35 and grading through a CST will still give you all the extra dynamic range and the 4.6K S-35 Arri Sensor along with the other build advantages.
The issue may not lie with the Arri Alexa 35 itself, but rather with the limitations of our eyes and brains in perceiving colors compared to what the Arri Alexa Mini offers. Even if you created a LUT that makes the colors of the mini look better, someone with a keen eye for detail may notice a difference. However, when viewed on a properly calibrated monitor, the colors produced by the Alexa 35 are true-to-life. The black levels are well-defined, which is noticeable in areas like the chin and hair texture, and even colors like red and orange in the background appear true to life. The green grass also looks natural on the Alexa 35. It's worth noting that the colors produced by the Arri Alexa 35 can differ significantly from what is perceived by the naked eye and what is displayed on a monitor. As such, if you are viewing and grading footage on a subpar monitor, you may not achieve color accuracy or view the best results. Furthermore, your own LUTs with the Alexa Mini (Emulation LUTs) are created with the goal of matching or achieving something, i.e., emulation. On the other hand, the official LUTs with the Alexa 35 are display LUTs designed to prevent viewers from looking at the log image. With a single push in Resolve, anyone can achieve what your Emulation LUT does to the image. It's important to note that everything you're saying is subjective. Despite all this, your video is excellent and serves as a great promotional for your LUTs.
No it's not due to eye and brain limitations, no a complex LUT is not a few pushes in Resolve and no it's not all subjective. You are guessing and guessing wrong.
The mini def seems to have more of a classical feel while the 35 feels a lot more modern. I could see the new colors on the 35 working better for scifi / dystopian genres. Would you consider developing a lut for Sony cameras that emulate the look of the Alexa 35? I feel like it'd offer an additional creative choice!
Maybe - I guess I'll wait and see if there's demand. I know personally I'd never use the Alexa 35 emulation LUT for my Sony lol as the 35 native colour actually REMINDED me of Sony colour tbh but if people want it - I could be pursuaded.
I think you're the first person to see Arri's new colour as a step back. I think the 35's colour is the best I've ever seen. So much so, I would rather use 35 emulation than mini emulation.
I address in the video that I'm the first person I'm aware of that has discussed it publicly. I've encountered a lot of people privately who agree with me.
at the very least, am grateful Joel is opening up the discussion and is pretty candid about his feelings and the pros/cons. I've heard others say similar things as well, it seems to be personal preference which is what the art is all about. I am just receiving my A35 now so will develop my own opinion but based on this video I preferred one or the other depending on the situation/scene. He's making a good tool to either use or not depending on what you want to do.
@@chicobraz4335 interesting - so you’ve been disappointed by the 35 colour as well? Could you elaborate? It’s funny how many people actually seem to feel this way because everything online seems to basically lean the opposite direction.
@@garfunkle37 no one wants to say it because they paid too $ for this high end camera. Other than colors this Camera and power , this camera has step or 2 over older Arri cams
TL;DR: Color gamut compression on the A35 for Rec.709 displays. Here's my technical explanation of why this happens: Arri Wide Gamut 4 is able to capture more color than the mini. Similar to how the Log C4 curve looks flatter than Log C3, the colors of the A35 will definitely look flatter (i.e. less saturated) on a Rec 709 transform. Let's talk about Dynamic Range, your mini can see up to 14.5 stops (or bits) of dynamic range, and that's 14.5 bits of brightness, or 2 to the power of 14.5 nits of brightness. However encoding 14.5 bits of color data is too massive for our computers, so they use a Logarithmic transfer curve to compress that data into 10 or 12 bits of color. Your Rec.709 display can only display up to 100 nits (6 stops) of brightness in the Rec.709 Gamut, so essentially the entire process can be said as trying to SQUEEZE 14.5 stops of captured data into 6 stops for viewing. Without any gamma corrections, shadows will appear bright and highlights will appear dark, hence the log look. Now apply this logic to the A35, except now we're thinking in terms of saturation. The A35 can capture much more saturated colors, and in order to display these highly saturated colors correctly, the colors are being SQUEEZED into a Rec.709 gamut space. This makes the "normal" colors look desaturated so that the "most" saturated colors can be displayed, otherwise color clipping will occur, this happens alot when you shoot directly into blue neon lights. The same can be said for Dynamic Range, for the same brightness, the A35 will appear darker on Rec.709 to make room for the extra 3 stops above white. The Alexa 35's sensor capabilities are built for future-proofing, because back then we had Rec.709 and now we have DCI-P3 capable monitors, soon there will be Rec.2020 TVs etc and A35 has got you covered by having a wider color gamut than Rec.2020. In order to truly see what the Alexa 35 is seeing, technically speaking we would need a TV that is capable of Rec.2020 gamut and HDR with a contrast ratio of at least 370,000. (doesn't exist yet)
Amazing. I love the comparison you make by comparing the Alexa 35 to the Sony FS7 -- which is hilarious -- but I get your point. The Alexa 35 feels that to capture higher Dynamic Range, Arri favored accuracy, of enhancing reality, (just like the Sony FS7). Both the Alexa Mini and Alexa 35 are amazing.
Yeah I just was remincscing on my long journey to understand what it was that I loved so much about the OG Arri colour science - and that was a milestone moment where I felt I had the prize firmly in my hands only to realise there were levels of complexity still far beyond my reach haha, which sent me back to the drawing board. It got me obsessed trying to figure out hey they did that - but then with the 35, they sort of left all that behind and went for a 'Sony-style' accuracy which in my mind was surprising to say the least. But yes - nevertheless, I still consider the 35 the GOAT.
Odd I've been feeling the opposite. I feel like everything I've shot with the 35 is extremely accurate to what my eye sees and more pleasing to me. That being said, I think theres some work to be done on their official standard LUTs. On high DR scenes, I feel like the LUTs don't do the extremely high dynamic range of the sensor justice.
I think it's okaaaay when exposed correctly with daylight but the moment you start underexposing or using mixed lighting, I struggle to see how it looks accurate OR better. What did you think of the tungsten shots? You think that's accurate and/or aesthetically appealing?
Highlight rolloff is arri’s specialty, can’t be disputed, but Venice in terms of out of the box color science belongs to Venice and some breed Panasonic cams
Ngl I actually kinda like the look of the Alexa 35. They remind me of the rec709 look from Venice cameras actually. They're not the most "aesthetically pleasing" straight outta the camera but I find that with very light grading or a moderate amount of a creative lut applied this kind of color is the best to work with whenever I have a very short turnaround time. With the mini's rec709 look, I've found that it looks amazing by default but looks kind of over-saturated and sickly when a light grade or lut is applied on top of it. I feel like you should try making a lut for this too tbh, I feel like it'd actually be easier on the codecs too since its naturally closer to most cameras' native color science.
Looking to upgrade from my Red Komodo. I could get a used mini for 22k or so or I could get the new Red V raptor X with the vista vision. Though the mini doesn't have the frame rates and stuff, do you think the mini is still worth it?
@@phantomluts haha, because I only use 35 and mini for one time. I mainly use Komodo as my A camera, and I have bought your Luts for Komodo, it's fantastic.
Have to say, I prefer the Alexa 35 image as a more neutral starting point. Probably no project filmed on ARRI will not involve some kind of colorist. So a straight out of camera creative look is little concern for most users.
Fair enough and thanks for your comment. But would you agree the 'straight out of camera' look of the Alexa was a huge part of what made it the most popular camera in hollywood (and basically the world) for 13 years? Also not every project shot on Alexa has a colourist. Many Arri customers are owner-operators who run their own small or medium production companies where they're colouring themselves on smaller to medium projects. So while many projects filmed on ARRI camera will necessarily feature a colourist, not all will. Also regarding the look out of camera for both, many people still shoot on film because of it's inherent aesthetic characteristics - people enjoy the look as a starting point. Similarly for me personally, I prefer the classic Alexa colour because it doesn't strike me as a 'creative look' but a very natural, reasonably accurate yet film-like image that has that x factor and for a starting point for grading it lands right in the sweet spot - perfect skin tones basically everytime and natural contrast to start your grade off with. To be brutally honest, the Alexa 35 skin tones seem inferior to me both on the grounds of colour accuracy (hue/saturation & luminance) and aethetic/artistic quality.
Have you watched Art Adams video on the new Reveal color science? (Title "A DP's Analysis of the new REVEAL Color Science") He clearly lays out the differences between the old and new color. The new color is less saturated at lower brightness levels to better reflect how humans perceive color. He also shows that Reveal has better color resolution in many of the examples. A colored light or with a strong tungsten cast, will more heavily saturate the person's skin in the old color science. It reflects more the lights' color. The new color science reveals more shades of color, so you will be able to discern a person's underlying skin tone or just the actual color of an object, under colored light. Art also explains the shift from more of a film look of the old color to the newer look. Film de-saturates as it gets brighter. But now with HDR TVs we can show bright highlights that are fully saturated. Combine that with the extra highlight latitude of the Arri 35, and the saturation rolls off far later than with the old color. Arri has left film emulation behind, mostly because display tech now is just better.
Yes I have and while I love the theoretical idea behind everything he discussed the reality wasn't so exciting for me. I can tell you that I personally disagree with the claim that the shadow saturation with darker colours is closer to what I see with my eye. I found the Alexa Mini to have much more naturalistic saturation falloff into the shadows but that's just my personal subjective opinoin. Also in regards to your comment 'The new color science reveals more shades of color', in my experience it did precisely the opposite (as discussed in the video) where the different hues and shades of colour are missing with the official Arri LUT and in reality there are much fewer hues available. I also don't feel like a lot of people will want to discern the underlying skin tone of a subject that they choose to bathe in strong coloured lighting. If I bathe someone in red light, I'm COUNTING on the hue of their skin being subsumed by the red of the light reflecting back at me. I don't know - it's pretty odd when you shoot with it - have you shot on the 35 yet? Also remember in my video the footage of my wife and boys reading in the bedroom lit by a tungsten light? That skin tone wasn't even close to reality - it has basically no colour and the colour it did display was not a natural or realistic (let alone appealing) skin tone. I'm glad we can agree that they have left film emulation behind - that much we can agree on. They had previously stood on the shoulders of giants who came before - borrowing from the iterative success provided by decades of film development and mixing its organic, checmical aesthetic with the simplicity of digital capture; effectively single handedly convincing Hollywood DPs and filmmakers to leave film behind by creating a camera that gave the best of both worlds. Now they've decided to venture out into unknown waters - I wish them all the best, but with something so new and untested, we shouldn't be surprised that some people miss the old colour.
I disagree. Yes, the colors seem to be more washed out, which can give impression of being cinematic, but the problem is that the image is in general just more artificial in Alexa 35. The feel of it is like from a mid-range camera, except it's capable of so much more. It lacks the magic of previous Alexas when it comes to the image quality.
To be honest the Alexa 35 has much better skin tone and color rendition. Mini has more of a red hue in the skin tone and not sure if that's better at all. Thanks for your review.
i think i personally prefer what I am seeing from the 35. I prefer low-contrast and more desaturated images, so seeing some of the images from the 35 I think feels more unified and up my alley. With that said, ultimately all the footage I should will be sent to a colorist and manipulated into the look I want, so it comes down to which camera is capturing the most information for that process down the road. The 35 wins for me because it captures more of that info.
Yes but it isn't lower contrast though - it's actually higher contrast (the Alexa35 official LUT) and in terms of contrast it has quite crunchy shadows to my eye. Also for me, it's much easier to back off the intensity of the Alexa Classic LUT to get less contrast and saturation than it is to bring out more complexity and richness in the 35 LUT. I agree that the CAMERA is superior to the Alexa Mini hence why I call it the GOAT and agree with your last point about wanting the sensor that gives the most info. That's why I said once I restored the Legacy colour to the 35, it was the most rewarding experience I'd ever had shooting. But anyway to be clear, as a starting point, you're saying you find the skin tones more appealing on the 35 native LUT?
@@phantomluts You actually make a lot of sense there. I think I just switched over to your side. I agree. I will say that I was finding the skin more appealing, but my taste usually runs more towards the low-con and desaturated images. Like for instance, the film example you showed has that very filmic saturated skin which has never been my favorite. I tend to lean towards the look of something you'd see in a film like Short Term 12 or Social Network. Which is ultimately all subjective. My thought was that the Alexa 35 footage I was seeing was a closer starting point to that, which is interesting because those films were shot on Red. Actually, a lot of my favorite looking films which have a similar feel are shot on Red which has historically been a very digital camera. It is interesting because you mentioned how the ALEV III sensor was very filmic, but this one is more digital. Perhaps that is what I am seeing. Maybe the Alexa 35 has that more digital "Red" like quality while still maintaining all the good things that make an Alexa the best. Curious what you think about that? I do agree on your point of contrast. Skin tones aside, I do see a lot of other nuances in the images that I think the Mini LUT does handle better. A lot of those tiny details in the background I feel do lose definition. Like you said, lacks the dimesionality of the ALEV III 709.
I'm not if it's just me, but I really like the Alexa 35 colours. Yes the Alexa Mini look more "flimic" But Alexa 35 colors looks like a very nice not trying to hard to be film kind of colors. Since I already have your phantom lut, I wanted something a little different, perhaps. Less filmic and also your future fuji luts.
I'll be releasing new LUTs with different looks in the future but honestly the skin tones on the 35 remind me of Sony skin tones (which is why I made Phantom LUTs in the first place lol) but maybe I'll look into making a LUT a little more muted and restrained like the 35.
@@phantomluts Now that you mentioned it, yes, it kinda looks like Sony's Skintone but not exactly, perhaps the subtle difference make a whole lot of difference. I was working on a project with a friend who rented the Alexa 35 with Cooke S8 full frame lens and I was impressed by the color coming out of it. Perhaps it's the lens that gives it a certain color. But side by side in your video, my eyes prefer the Alexa 35 color. But when I use your phantom lut on my FX3 footage, I prefer the phantom lut colors.
So, how about not using luts and doing a better grade? If you absolutely don't want to use a colorist or you feel you're not up to par with doing a proper professional grade, I would suggest adding Dehancer so you can get an incredible image and it won't reduce your dynamic range like luts do. cheers
Yeah you could do that sure, but often people like things packaged. I could reconstruct my Alexa Mini emulation every single time I need it, or I could just export the weeks of work into a single LUT that loads up whenever I need it. It's sort of like cooking a meal from scratch every night versus eating out at a restaurant that you love - sometimes it's easier let them do all the hard work and you can focus on just eating it. Dehancer is a fantastic program but it is film emulation, in this video we were discussing Alexa Mini Emulation.
I'm going to disagree with you on the color of the Alexa35. The color on the newer camera is actually way more pleasing than on the Mini. What you call "desaturated" and "fewer colors", is actually how film looks AFTER it has been printed into another film (i.e. the final movie that would be shown in a theater). The rich color of film is only for very specific objects on a frame. Basically, when an object is "normal" in terms of saturation, film will show it as the Alexa35 does. But when its saturation jumps out (e.g. a very red coat a woman on the screen wears), then, and only then, film will make that color feel "rich". Film basically has a non linear response to color. Alexa35 records correctly in lower saturation to get that "base" film look, and then, you will need color grading to get that "pop" for the specific objects using some deep tricks (that are arguably easier pulled off on Baselight rather than on DaVinci Resolve).
Fair enough but I haven't heard ARRI one time say that film was the target for the REVEAL colour (I could be wrong ofc) But I've heard them focus their marketing on it being the most ACCURATE colour science around. Also no one I know of has ever claimed that film's great strength was it's accuracy, especially in comparison to digital. Again it's not just the saturation level, it's much more than just that as I discuss in the video. And the Alexa Mini did what you described film as doing much better I think anyway - it had normal colours rednered normally and then when a colour needed to POP, it would. The issue is nothign really pops on the 35 - even the rich colours like I described looking at the kid's book or describing the sunset on my Amira vs the Fs7 - The 35 didn't handle sunsets well compared to my mini either for the same reason. But if you prefer the 35 colour, all good :) That was the idea - to provide a thorough comparison for the viewer to decide for themselves.
Happy you spoke on this - I have one on the way, and most of the footage/color I've seen from the 35 looks more separated and digital than the mini. I prefer the...muddier(?) texture of the mini. Thanks for making these LUTs, well done
Thansk Hudson - yes I've been amazed at the silence on this online knowing how much the average Alexa owner loved the old image pipeline for it's colour and filmic look straight out of the box. Appreciate the comment.
you're absolutely right, alexa 35 to me looked like a well shot Sony A7SIII, it was just too digital and not that cinematic movement that we have come to love with Amira, Mini or Mini LF, if i had all the budget i would still stick with the LF
Yeah thankfully we can grade the colour back to that classic Alexa look with the right tools and with some work but the mindset shift over at ARRI was quite a surprise (accuracy over beauty). Nevertheless - it's still my fav camera of all time.
No it's not colour acccuracy
There’s something about older digital cinema sensors and colors that feel incredibly more filmic than a lot of the modern cameras. I’m talking about the Alexa Classic, Mini, the original Blackmagics, even the old REDs. Nice character, colors, texture, and rolloff.
BMPCC is best,and very cheep!!!
The Alexa 35's new color science fixes a lot of the issues that we had with the old color science, where we did a great job with the tools available but we'd pushed them as far as we could. The new color science uses a new mathematical model that's much more perceptually accurate. The biggest difference that I've seen is in any color that has green or magenta, as we are now able to match the perceptual brightness of these hues whereas before we could get the hue right but they would be brighter or darker than the human eye would see them.
Also, as you noticed, hues don't drift nearly as much with exposure changes as you would see in the older cameras. This is a big deal in HDR, as it shortens grading times considerably.
We always go for the hard stuff, and it's really difficult to make a camera that produces colors this close to how the human eye perceives them. You can always get back to the old look if you want it, and indeed you can get to any look more easily than you could with the old color science. The old color won a lot of awards, but it's looking backward at where we've come from in terms of technology. and tools. The new color science looks forward to the fact that the way we look at images is going to become more and more critical as displays become higher in contrast and dynamic range. We want to make sure cinematographers have all the control they may want and need, and this new processing is a huge improvement.
It's easy to make "pretty" color as this does not have to be accurate. It's harder to make accurate color that's also pretty. We think we've done that this time around. So far we've only made this kind of change once every 12 years, so we'll see what happens in another 12. :)
new color science = more digital feeling? the art is not mathematic.......sorry..........
@@chinafunnytao2523 I'm not sure what you mean. Every camera system uses math to translate sensor data into color information. Our new math comes the closest I've seen to a camera creating an image that matches human vision. That means you can light by eye and have a lot of confidence that the colors you see will translate well to the recorded image.
As for more "digital feeling," I don't see that at all. For me, "digital" means seeing the most common color rendering errors that happen using the old mathematical tools that everyone uses (failures in capturing accurate reds, yellows, greens, purples and blues) or seeing that a camera system can't render colors that film can (like rich cyans). Reveal does an incredible job at capturing all those colors accurately.
What I've found is that people interpret Reveal as feeling "digital" because they are too used to seeing what other color sciences render incorrectly. When they see Reveal they think it looks "wrong" even though it looks more "right" than anything that has come before it.
"The art is not mathematic..." We're not in the business of making art. That's your job. What we do is present you with a color palette that gives you the greatest latitude and ease of use to create the images that you want to create. Ask a colorist what they think of working with Alexa 35 footage. Every single one that I've spoken to says they can do more, and more quickly, than ever before.
Judging a camera purely by its default look doesn't make any sense to me. That's primarily a technical display transform. There's a little bit of artistry in there, but that's not its primary goal. The true test is how easily you can push it to create the look you want. Film is a commercial art form, and we spend a lot of time to make sure you can get to where you want to go by spending as little money as possible. That usually results in more creative opportunities in the long run.
@@art_adams_arri Well, I try to explain my point: yes, maybe the new generation ARRI algorithm is closer to vision....but it is farther away from the texture and oily feel of film, more like digital video. I have worked with many cameras and the arri 35 is too close to the SONY fx series, even the A series.😁
@@art_adams_arri When people walk into a movie theater, what they expect to see is a feeling and visual impact different from reality. If people go into a movie theater and see "reality," why should they pay to go into a movie theater?
@@art_adams_arri The particle function added to ARRI 35 has been easy to implement for a long time in the past, but why did it appear on ARRI 35? My personal guess: ARRI executives must have realized something was wrong after first time seeing the image of the 35 camera, but there was no chance to correct it, so they added the function of simulating film grain and texture to the 35 camera to weaken the excessive The senses of digital video.
Haha, hope I'm wrong....
I was at Arri’s introduction event of the Alexa 35 at the DGA in Los Angeles. They screened most of the commissioned films shot with the 35 in the perfectly calibrated theater at the DGA. I immediately disliked the color of the Alexa 35. I spoke to another attendee who felt the same way. I posted about this on a very well known DP’s website, and subsequently found out this DP took a look at the 35 at Arri in Burbank during its development, and decided to stick with the camera he has been using for a few years to shoot an upcoming film.
I don’t understand or agree with Arri’s departure from the color science that they created for the previous generation, and I am glad to finally see someone with the guts to put together a review like this. I am pretty sure Hollywood is not jumping on the new color science or perhaps even the camera itself, despite its many, many great on set technical innovations.
No, it's not the colour of A35, it's how you see it via output conversion
Yeah sorry for the delayed response - I had the exact same feeling when I saw the first footage from the Alexa 35 and was surprised that no one online was talking about it. To be honest, it was a little nerve racking to be the first one to sort of break ranks and confess I wasn't the hugest fan of the colour, which for the past decade had been one of Arri's main drawcards along with it's DR and plug-and-play user friendly menu/workflow.
It seems so strange to me that they didn't just provide a pair of LUTs in camera; LUT 1 to recreate their legacy colour science and LUT 2 for the new REVEAL colour. That way, you get everything you love about the old Arri cameras plus more - nothing would be lost - there would only be gain.
@@phantomlutsOwn an Alexa 4:3 and totally agree. So weird how this video is the only place I’m seeing this discussion. I’ve done a lot of testing and always find the REVEAL version of the footage to look much more bland, shallow and digital. The few movies shot on A35 also look pretty bland.
I think it’s partly due to how they’re marketing the camera. The recent announcement of Alexa 35 Live and other comments from Arri make it clear they’re trying to sell the A35 to everyone, not just cinema. I doubt live sports have much interest in everything looking like an old filmstock.
Maybe the LF replacement will be more cinema focused and bring a more classic Alexa LUT/colour pipeline with it.
This is crazy. I felt that instantly from the reveal footage of the camera, but everyone was telling me I was wrong. Something about the color seemed off.
Nice review. Congrats on the 35. We just got the mini (non LF). I feel the same way. I love the old Alexa look. I still miss the Alexa classic (plus)
I have recently bought an old Arri (Alexa SXT) and have also downloaded and graded a few clips from the Aexa 35. I was surprised when I first got the Alexa SXT how saturated and poppy some of the colours were, how they changed depending on exposure and that you have to be careful how far, for example, you can underexpose skin tones before they get a bit reddish and muddy to my eye. The new Alexa is definitely less saturated but the colours hold up better with even big changes in exposure. Funnily enough, I prefer the 3.2K/3.4K of the SXT in terms of resolution as I find the 4.6K a bit detailed at times, but you can soften it with filters. Both cameras have their beauty, but neither are ideal, in my view! I would want to shoot the 35 with a special kind of LUT, as I do with the SXT, just a very different LUT in both cases.
Yes see I like that 'shifting sands' dynamic with the colours on the Alev3 sensor - it reminds me of film - it adds that 'dimensionality' I kept talking about where the colours twist and weave in unexpected ways to give the image a more non-linear, chemical feeling. It feels maybe a bit more 'impresionistic' rather than accurate but I like that personally.
I feel for Arri - the ALEV sensor was basically a one in a million and probably never needed to be changed. It's a huge step to move away from that. However I can also see some huge benefits with the new sensor - it looks super clean so no unwanted colors - so maybe the 35 is a DIT heavy camera.
Honestly, I don't think the sensor is the problem, the 35 has the best sensor I've seen - it the colour science that's the problem
Bravo! Wonderful overview, been looking for something like this video for months now. Subscribed!
Oh great! As in you have an A35 and found the colour not to your tastes?
@@phantomluts I have an A35, but I like the color, you can push it much further. I like seeing contrarian views than mine. Keep up the great content!
Thanks for sharing this Joel. This was very helpful to see as I was concerned over the Alexa35 color not measuring up to the original AlevIII sensor, and feeling more video-like. I’ve spoken with several people that have preferred the look of the Mini to the A35 and even heard of a feature choosing the mini over the A35 because of this look difference.
This caused me to put a pause on whether I wanted to hang onto my A35 pre-order or not. But seeing what you’re able to do with your LUT to match the Mini gives me a lot more confidence that it can still have that filmic look with the right LUT/grade. There are a lot more gradations and hues in the Mini emulation that feels more filmic to me then the higher contrast, more muted LUT from the A35. I do like a desaturated image, but there is something about the original A35 LUT that isn’t as interesting and complex that you would expect for a $90k camera.
Now of course it depends on the project, but overall I think the look you’ve been able to create is a much better starting place to shoot with. Thanks Joel for putting this together and for also speaking up about something that most people have been silent on publicly.
Thanks Peter - as I say in the video, it really is an incredible camera, it's just the colour that takes a bit of work.
So I felt depositing a few weeks of work into a simple LUT would offer the legacy colour as a viable alternative would be a project worth pursuing.
I’ll add that I noted the development of the previous sensor and color science happened at a time when Arri were trying to sell the camera to an industry that would compare the camera to film and Kodak stocks. Sadly in my opinion, Arri has moved to what they consider a technical improvement of of film’s rendition of color. It may be, when you examine the data. My eye is what matters, and I think Arri really dropped the ball with “Reveal”.
Alexa 35 looks a lot like an A7S/FX3/FX6 to me in terms of colour. I’m a bit surprised. Liking the Alexa Mini colour better.
Very interesting. I definitely still feel the Alev3 sensor and pipeline is about as good as it gets for digital.
Yes so far in some ways I agree for sure. Honestly though mixing the best from both is really out of this world and even better!
I am a big fan of stereograms, and I don't know if anyone has noticed the amount of perfect and satisfying stereograms this guy has put together. Bravo
Not sure if this was trolling or legit lol...
It's legit, stereograms are awesome, and you created a bunch of them.@@phantomluts
To see them, watch the video on your phone, portrait mode, then kind of cross your eyes until you see four images, then make the two in the middle merge into one and it becomes a stereogram.@@phantomluts
Well then Thanks! 😁
I think this misses the whole point though, the camera isn't recording in 709. Never was. Just one way to view it. If Arri wanted to spend all their RND time matching the 709 transform of the new camera to the mini and mini LF they easily could've done exactly what you did. They instead spent 12 years of RND to make a better sensor with better color accuracy, fidelity, and more dynamic range than anyone can touch. 709 has never been meant to be the deliverable, and yes "out of camera" color on the Alexa is what has drawn people to it, but also none of the movies and commercials that are blowing you away are showing you the 709 image. 709 is just a stepping stone in the image making process, never the final destination.
Saying "but hows the color" feels odd, when it's very literally the best color science to exist, even though you may wish it was slightly warmer and more saturated. I don't know anyone shooting on the Alexa 35 that isn't using custom viewing luts for on set, and then coloring the footage. You're not/should definitely not be shooting on Alexa (35, mini or mini LF for that matter) just to throw 709 on the image and call it a day.
Is the emulation LUT a direct LogC4 to Rec709 LUT, or is it a log-to-log LUT that can be part of the standard A35 log-to-log workflow? For those who wish to work with LogC3 color pipeline, it's fairly easy to just grade the Alexa 35 through a CST node in either LogC3 or Cineon Film Log. Both approaches deliver an amazing grade out of the A35.
I feel overall that we're still in early stages of what can be achieved with LogC4 and Reveal color science and I've seen some amazing grades coming out of the big labs in LA. It's certainly a learning curve, but if working with Reveal is not giving you the results you hope for, shooting A35 and grading through a CST will still give you all the extra dynamic range and the 4.6K S-35 Arri Sensor along with the other build advantages.
The elephant in the room, great analysis mate
The issue may not lie with the Arri Alexa 35 itself, but rather with the limitations of our eyes and brains in perceiving colors compared to what the Arri Alexa Mini offers. Even if you created a LUT that makes the colors of the mini look better, someone with a keen eye for detail may notice a difference. However, when viewed on a properly calibrated monitor, the colors produced by the Alexa 35 are true-to-life. The black levels are well-defined, which is noticeable in areas like the chin and hair texture, and even colors like red and orange in the background appear true to life. The green grass also looks natural on the Alexa 35.
It's worth noting that the colors produced by the Arri Alexa 35 can differ significantly from what is perceived by the naked eye and what is displayed on a monitor. As such, if you are viewing and grading footage on a subpar monitor, you may not achieve color accuracy or view the best results.
Furthermore, your own LUTs with the Alexa Mini (Emulation LUTs) are created with the goal of matching or achieving something, i.e., emulation. On the other hand, the official LUTs with the Alexa 35 are display LUTs designed to prevent viewers from looking at the log image. With a single push in Resolve, anyone can achieve what your Emulation LUT does to the image. It's important to note that everything you're saying is subjective. Despite all this, your video is excellent and serves as a great promotional for your LUTs.
No it's not due to eye and brain limitations, no a complex LUT is not a few pushes in Resolve and no it's not all subjective. You are guessing and guessing wrong.
The mini def seems to have more of a classical feel while the 35 feels a lot more modern. I could see the new colors on the 35 working better for scifi / dystopian genres. Would you consider developing a lut for Sony cameras that emulate the look of the Alexa 35? I feel like it'd offer an additional creative choice!
Maybe - I guess I'll wait and see if there's demand. I know personally I'd never use the Alexa 35 emulation LUT for my Sony lol as the 35 native colour actually REMINDED me of Sony colour tbh but if people want it - I could be pursuaded.
Great work! Greetings Jerome from Gafpagear
Thanks Jerome!
Great insight man, love your work. New sub right here! 🙋🏽♂️
Thanks!
I think you're the first person to see Arri's new colour as a step back. I think the 35's colour is the best I've ever seen. So much so, I would rather use 35 emulation than mini emulation.
I address in the video that I'm the first person I'm aware of that has discussed it publicly. I've encountered a lot of people privately who agree with me.
at the very least, am grateful Joel is opening up the discussion and is pretty candid about his feelings and the pros/cons. I've heard others say similar things as well, it seems to be personal preference which is what the art is all about. I am just receiving my A35 now so will develop my own opinion but based on this video I preferred one or the other depending on the situation/scene. He's making a good tool to either use or not depending on what you want to do.
You’re just scared to say I spent $$$ and I’m not as happy, I have also had a few feel the same way , me being one also
@@chicobraz4335 interesting - so you’ve been disappointed by the 35 colour as well? Could you elaborate? It’s funny how many people actually seem to feel this way because everything online seems to basically lean the opposite direction.
@@garfunkle37 no one wants to say it because they paid too $ for this high end camera. Other than colors this Camera and power , this camera has step or 2 over older Arri cams
TL;DR: Color gamut compression on the A35 for Rec.709 displays.
Here's my technical explanation of why this happens: Arri Wide Gamut 4 is able to capture more color than the mini.
Similar to how the Log C4 curve looks flatter than Log C3, the colors of the A35 will definitely look flatter (i.e. less saturated) on a Rec 709 transform.
Let's talk about Dynamic Range, your mini can see up to 14.5 stops (or bits) of dynamic range, and that's 14.5 bits of brightness, or 2 to the power of 14.5 nits of brightness.
However encoding 14.5 bits of color data is too massive for our computers, so they use a Logarithmic transfer curve to compress that data into 10 or 12 bits of color.
Your Rec.709 display can only display up to 100 nits (6 stops) of brightness in the Rec.709 Gamut, so essentially the entire process can be said as trying to SQUEEZE 14.5 stops of captured data into 6 stops for viewing.
Without any gamma corrections, shadows will appear bright and highlights will appear dark, hence the log look.
Now apply this logic to the A35, except now we're thinking in terms of saturation. The A35 can capture much more saturated colors, and in order to display these highly saturated colors correctly, the colors are being SQUEEZED into a Rec.709 gamut space. This makes the "normal" colors look desaturated so that the "most" saturated colors can be displayed, otherwise color clipping will occur, this happens alot when you shoot directly into blue neon lights.
The same can be said for Dynamic Range, for the same brightness, the A35 will appear darker on Rec.709 to make room for the extra 3 stops above white.
The Alexa 35's sensor capabilities are built for future-proofing, because back then we had Rec.709 and now we have DCI-P3 capable monitors, soon there will be Rec.2020 TVs etc and A35 has got you covered by having a wider color gamut than Rec.2020.
In order to truly see what the Alexa 35 is seeing, technically speaking we would need a TV that is capable of Rec.2020 gamut and HDR with a contrast ratio of at least 370,000. (doesn't exist yet)
go to see movie, which shoot by A35 .Frankly speaking, the picture is very ugly......
100% agree.
When I first time watched promo of new Alexa 35, I commented it like so.
Yeah same - I thought it looked off right away - kind of plastic and clearly different.
@@phantomluts did you see how Art Adams vindicate this new color engine?
Amazing. I love the comparison you make by comparing the Alexa 35 to the Sony FS7 -- which is hilarious -- but I get your point. The Alexa 35 feels that to capture higher Dynamic Range, Arri favored accuracy, of enhancing reality, (just like the Sony FS7). Both the Alexa Mini and Alexa 35 are amazing.
Yeah I just was remincscing on my long journey to understand what it was that I loved so much about the OG Arri colour science - and that was a milestone moment where I felt I had the prize firmly in my hands only to realise there were levels of complexity still far beyond my reach haha, which sent me back to the drawing board. It got me obsessed trying to figure out hey they did that - but then with the 35, they sort of left all that behind and went for a 'Sony-style' accuracy which in my mind was surprising to say the least.
But yes - nevertheless, I still consider the 35 the GOAT.
Interesting comparisons. I much prefer the Alexa 35 lut - the less saturated image of the 35 seems more subtle and natural to me.
great video! Enjoyed it!
Thanks dude!
I played the “dimensionality” drinking game. Got so drunk I sold my house and got an Alexa 35.
Haha ok just make sure not to drive right now!
This comment 😂
Old is Gold
awesome video! thanks!!
Thanks and you're welcome!
thank you for this! Amazing
Glad you liked it!
Odd I've been feeling the opposite. I feel like everything I've shot with the 35 is extremely accurate to what my eye sees and more pleasing to me. That being said, I think theres some work to be done on their official standard LUTs. On high DR scenes, I feel like the LUTs don't do the extremely high dynamic range of the sensor justice.
I think it's okaaaay when exposed correctly with daylight but the moment you start underexposing or using mixed lighting, I struggle to see how it looks accurate OR better. What did you think of the tungsten shots? You think that's accurate and/or aesthetically appealing?
Highlight rolloff is arri’s specialty, can’t be disputed, but Venice in terms of out of the box color science belongs to Venice and some breed Panasonic cams
Ngl I actually kinda like the look of the Alexa 35. They remind me of the rec709 look from Venice cameras actually. They're not the most "aesthetically pleasing" straight outta the camera but I find that with very light grading or a moderate amount of a creative lut applied this kind of color is the best to work with whenever I have a very short turnaround time. With the mini's rec709 look, I've found that it looks amazing by default but looks kind of over-saturated and sickly when a light grade or lut is applied on top of it. I feel like you should try making a lut for this too tbh, I feel like it'd actually be easier on the codecs too since its naturally closer to most cameras' native color science.
Looking to upgrade from my Red Komodo. I could get a used mini for 22k or so or I could get the new Red V raptor X with the vista vision.
Though the mini doesn't have the frame rates and stuff, do you think the mini is still worth it?
I still use the Mini all the time, the image is gorgeous. I guess it will depend on how you plan to use it and your personal preference
I think because of the super high dynamic range and because we are viewing it in Rec709, it sacrifices color?
no,actuly,most eara is same,alex 35 too much digital feeling!
Can you provide the link for the Alexa mini emulator for the A35?
Hey mate, link is in the video description!
Can I just buy 35 Luts for booth Arri 35 and mini usage?
I offer the 35 and the Mini as a different pack due to their different sensors and development
@@phantomluts haha, because I only use 35 and mini for one time. I mainly use Komodo as my A camera, and I have bought your Luts for Komodo, it's fantastic.
Have to say, I prefer the Alexa 35 image as a more neutral starting point. Probably no project filmed on ARRI will not involve some kind of colorist. So a straight out of camera creative look is little concern for most users.
Fair enough and thanks for your comment. But would you agree the 'straight out of camera' look of the Alexa was a huge part of what made it the most popular camera in hollywood (and basically the world) for 13 years? Also not every project shot on Alexa has a colourist. Many Arri customers are owner-operators who run their own small or medium production companies where they're colouring themselves on smaller to medium projects. So while many projects filmed on ARRI camera will necessarily feature a colourist, not all will. Also regarding the look out of camera for both, many people still shoot on film because of it's inherent aesthetic characteristics - people enjoy the look as a starting point. Similarly for me personally, I prefer the classic Alexa colour because it doesn't strike me as a 'creative look' but a very natural, reasonably accurate yet film-like image that has that x factor and for a starting point for grading it lands right in the sweet spot - perfect skin tones basically everytime and natural contrast to start your grade off with. To be brutally honest, the Alexa 35 skin tones seem inferior to me both on the grounds of colour accuracy (hue/saturation & luminance) and aethetic/artistic quality.
the alexa 35 looks brighter underexposed. chatting from Africa
Yeah interesting point
Have you watched Art Adams video on the new Reveal color science? (Title "A DP's Analysis of the new REVEAL Color Science") He clearly lays out the differences between the old and new color. The new color is less saturated at lower brightness levels to better reflect how humans perceive color. He also shows that Reveal has better color resolution in many of the examples. A colored light or with a strong tungsten cast, will more heavily saturate the person's skin in the old color science. It reflects more the lights' color. The new color science reveals more shades of color, so you will be able to discern a person's underlying skin tone or just the actual color of an object, under colored light. Art also explains the shift from more of a film look of the old color to the newer look. Film de-saturates as it gets brighter. But now with HDR TVs we can show bright highlights that are fully saturated. Combine that with the extra highlight latitude of the Arri 35, and the saturation rolls off far later than with the old color. Arri has left film emulation behind, mostly because display tech now is just better.
Yes I have and while I love the theoretical idea behind everything he discussed the reality wasn't so exciting for me. I can tell you that I personally disagree with the claim that the shadow saturation with darker colours is closer to what I see with my eye. I found the Alexa Mini to have much more naturalistic saturation falloff into the shadows but that's just my personal subjective opinoin.
Also in regards to your comment 'The new color science reveals more shades of color', in my experience it did precisely the opposite (as discussed in the video) where the different hues and shades of colour are missing with the official Arri LUT and in reality there are much fewer hues available. I also don't feel like a lot of people will want to discern the underlying skin tone of a subject that they choose to bathe in strong coloured lighting. If I bathe someone in red light, I'm COUNTING on the hue of their skin being subsumed by the red of the light reflecting back at me. I don't know - it's pretty odd when you shoot with it - have you shot on the 35 yet?
Also remember in my video the footage of my wife and boys reading in the bedroom lit by a tungsten light? That skin tone wasn't even close to reality - it has basically no colour and the colour it did display was not a natural or realistic (let alone appealing) skin tone.
I'm glad we can agree that they have left film emulation behind - that much we can agree on. They had previously stood on the shoulders of giants who came before - borrowing from the iterative success provided by decades of film development and mixing its organic, checmical aesthetic with the simplicity of digital capture; effectively single handedly convincing Hollywood DPs and filmmakers to leave film behind by creating a camera that gave the best of both worlds. Now they've decided to venture out into unknown waters - I wish them all the best, but with something so new and untested, we shouldn't be surprised that some people miss the old colour.
Science vs emotion.
Is the link still available for this? Im just being lead to the Phantom LUT website and Komodo/Canon Blackmagic /Panasonic LUTs
Hi Matt - yes the ARRI ones are there, 4th from the top - are you not seeing them?
@@phantomluts I think your Linktree might not be working correctly? I can only see one link on it and it leads back to this video
Sony Color Science rules!
Love this dude!
Thanks Brenton!
IMHO I think that the Alexa 35 Official Lut looks more cinematic/filmic than the Alexa Mini Emulation Lut.
Fair enough.
I disagree. Yes, the colors seem to be more washed out, which can give impression of being cinematic, but the problem is that the image is in general just more artificial in Alexa 35. The feel of it is like from a mid-range camera, except it's capable of so much more. It lacks the magic of previous Alexas when it comes to the image quality.
Joel, can you please make a comparison video between the Arri and sub-$2000 cameras color? Thanks for the consideration.
Hey Kanku, which Arri?
@@phantomluts Alexa 35?
The Alexa 35 looks more natural and color-accurate, whereas the Alexa Mini looks oversaturated and yellowish.
i hope so much you make a lut for the ronin 4d 6k and 8k i loved your luts on the mavic, fs7 fx6 a7siii and so on
Hi Thomas I have made them fore the 6k camera - not the 8k yet but soon hopefully.
@@phantomluts that is awesome! Tahnks a lot i check it out right away!
To be honest the Alexa 35 has much better skin tone and color rendition. Mini has more of a red hue in the skin tone and not sure if that's better at all. Thanks for your review.
i prefer the mini looking at the test footage
me too!
i think i personally prefer what I am seeing from the 35. I prefer low-contrast and more desaturated images, so seeing some of the images from the 35 I think feels more unified and up my alley. With that said, ultimately all the footage I should will be sent to a colorist and manipulated into the look I want, so it comes down to which camera is capturing the most information for that process down the road. The 35 wins for me because it captures more of that info.
Yes but it isn't lower contrast though - it's actually higher contrast (the Alexa35 official LUT) and in terms of contrast it has quite crunchy shadows to my eye. Also for me, it's much easier to back off the intensity of the Alexa Classic LUT to get less contrast and saturation than it is to bring out more complexity and richness in the 35 LUT.
I agree that the CAMERA is superior to the Alexa Mini hence why I call it the GOAT and agree with your last point about wanting the sensor that gives the most info. That's why I said once I restored the Legacy colour to the 35, it was the most rewarding experience I'd ever had shooting. But anyway to be clear, as a starting point, you're saying you find the skin tones more appealing on the 35 native LUT?
@@phantomluts You actually make a lot of sense there. I think I just switched over to your side. I agree. I will say that I was finding the skin more appealing, but my taste usually runs more towards the low-con and desaturated images. Like for instance, the film example you showed has that very filmic saturated skin which has never been my favorite. I tend to lean towards the look of something you'd see in a film like Short Term 12 or Social Network. Which is ultimately all subjective. My thought was that the Alexa 35 footage I was seeing was a closer starting point to that, which is interesting because those films were shot on Red. Actually, a lot of my favorite looking films which have a similar feel are shot on Red which has historically been a very digital camera. It is interesting because you mentioned how the ALEV III sensor was very filmic, but this one is more digital. Perhaps that is what I am seeing. Maybe the Alexa 35 has that more digital "Red" like quality while still maintaining all the good things that make an Alexa the best. Curious what you think about that? I do agree on your point of contrast. Skin tones aside, I do see a lot of other nuances in the images that I think the Mini LUT does handle better. A lot of those tiny details in the background I feel do lose definition. Like you said, lacks the dimesionality of the ALEV III 709.
"I took the plunge" lol. "I mortgaged my house to buy a camera" more like it. :)
It sure feels that way 🤣
Yoy are commenting camera performance through evaluating LUTs
He did call the Alexa 35 the GOAT though -remember that part?
Yes but a bunch of wrong assumptions regarding colour.
CCD vs CMOS explains it.
I'm not if it's just me, but I really like the Alexa 35 colours. Yes the Alexa Mini look more "flimic" But Alexa 35 colors looks like a very nice not trying to hard to be film kind of colors. Since I already have your phantom lut, I wanted something a little different, perhaps. Less filmic and also your future fuji luts.
I'll be releasing new LUTs with different looks in the future but honestly the skin tones on the 35 remind me of Sony skin tones (which is why I made Phantom LUTs in the first place lol) but maybe I'll look into making a LUT a little more muted and restrained like the 35.
@@phantomluts Now that you mentioned it, yes, it kinda looks like Sony's Skintone but not exactly, perhaps the subtle difference make a whole lot of difference. I was working on a project with a friend who rented the Alexa 35 with Cooke S8 full frame lens and I was impressed by the color coming out of it. Perhaps it's the lens that gives it a certain color. But side by side in your video, my eyes prefer the Alexa 35 color. But when I use your phantom lut on my FX3 footage, I prefer the phantom lut colors.
Still so bulky as Mini ?
So, how about not using luts and doing a better grade? If you absolutely don't want to use a colorist or you feel you're not up to par with doing a proper professional grade, I would suggest adding Dehancer so you can get an incredible image and it won't reduce your dynamic range like luts do. cheers
Yeah you could do that sure, but often people like things packaged. I could reconstruct my Alexa Mini emulation every single time I need it, or I could just export the weeks of work into a single LUT that loads up whenever I need it. It's sort of like cooking a meal from scratch every night versus eating out at a restaurant that you love - sometimes it's easier let them do all the hard work and you can focus on just eating it. Dehancer is a fantastic program but it is film emulation, in this video we were discussing Alexa Mini Emulation.
I'm going to disagree with you on the color of the Alexa35. The color on the newer camera is actually way more pleasing than on the Mini. What you call "desaturated" and "fewer colors", is actually how film looks AFTER it has been printed into another film (i.e. the final movie that would be shown in a theater). The rich color of film is only for very specific objects on a frame. Basically, when an object is "normal" in terms of saturation, film will show it as the Alexa35 does. But when its saturation jumps out (e.g. a very red coat a woman on the screen wears), then, and only then, film will make that color feel "rich". Film basically has a non linear response to color. Alexa35 records correctly in lower saturation to get that "base" film look, and then, you will need color grading to get that "pop" for the specific objects using some deep tricks (that are arguably easier pulled off on Baselight rather than on DaVinci Resolve).
Fair enough but I haven't heard ARRI one time say that film was the target for the REVEAL colour (I could be wrong ofc) But I've heard them focus their marketing on it being the most ACCURATE colour science around.
Also no one I know of has ever claimed that film's great strength was it's accuracy, especially in comparison to digital.
Again it's not just the saturation level, it's much more than just that as I discuss in the video. And the Alexa Mini did what you described film as doing much better I think anyway - it had normal colours rednered normally and then when a colour needed to POP, it would.
The issue is nothign really pops on the 35 - even the rich colours like I described looking at the kid's book or describing the sunset on my Amira vs the Fs7 - The 35 didn't handle sunsets well compared to my mini either for the same reason.
But if you prefer the 35 colour, all good :) That was the idea - to provide a thorough comparison for the viewer to decide for themselves.