I have to say after learning how to use a 3D beam splitter at one point for stereo, I'm so so glad someone finally saw the potential in the rig for 2D testing purposes. Thank you thank you, keep it coming with anamorphic FF vs 4-perf
Why can't all reviews be like this? No loud music intro or branding yourself as some shitty UA-cam name like Wesley Pipes or Michael J Cox? Just straight vid. You sir got my sub.
These days I think I'm going against the grain a little but I really love the s35 look. I've always found that larger formats flatten the image more, which might sound counterintuitive as they offer more depth but I feel like the longer focal lengths that they demand often look flatter. I also feel like the extra depth when used to too much of an extent takes me out of the story somehow, I think that I'd rather see more separation achieved through better set design, lighting, wardrobe rather than just a blurrier background. I do wonder whether my thoughts on it may change as more cinematographers embrace ff and the generally accepted look of films becomes that larger sensor. For now though, what an excellent resource for DPs, many thanks for the hours that will have been put into this.
I agree with what you say for the most part and recently I have fallen in love with deep focus and like you say creating separation through set design as blurry footage looks almost fake in a way. But, as much as a bigger sensor adds more blur into an image reducing the f-stop will increase the depth of field. And this is why I stand by something like the 65 as you get that large format feel with the choice to have deep focus.
@@tomfodenfilm I completely agree with everything that you're saying, I agree with you about stopping down too. When you do that it lays out the true meaningful differences between large and small sensor sizes (in my opinion). Larger offers more true to life lines, a more crop-into-able image due to using a larger optical plane of the lens. Smaller is a more distorted image (something that I massively favour however much of a negative it may seem) a wider selection of glass choice and generally less expense for a production to manage. All in all I think that both s35 and large formats ultimately have their own places (as do other sizes s16 etc, let's not forget those) and are here to stay. I think people should be considered in their choices just like you highlighted in your comment and not just go with the 'bigger and shallower is always better', approach.
I 100% agree not stopping down which is usually a big issue with small budgets though I don't agree about s35 over FF. Are there specific movies/tv out there that you can point to shot with Arri LF, 65, Red Helium/Monstro that you feel would be better in s35?
@@vlcheish thanks for dropping a comment but I'm personally not sure that's the general feeling around in the industry at the moment. Yes, we are definitely seeing a big increase in FF for lots of reasons aesthetic being a big one of course but also the 'in thing' factor and the Netflix pixel count conundrum are big contributors. This all being said though, if it were simply true that FF was just an outright better medium to S35 why would Arri currently be developing a new line of S35 camera, why would people still film on S16 and why would the industry not have jumped on the FF bandwagon sooner? It's because it's a stylistic choice and a choice of practicality. All I was saying was simply that I'm not personally YET a convert to the look and feel of FF compared to S35. Having said all of that the ultimate difference between the two when a talented DP is behind the camera can be subtle and it's definitely not to say that I outright wouldn't appreciate the look and feel of a movie because it was shot FF. I think that it's great that we now have more choice between looks and that FF has become available. Is it here to stay? Heck yer and so it should, it creates a more natural 'true to life' look and the way that it can utilise the image circle of vintage lenses to a greater degree is really lovely but it's a different tool not a better one, not a worse one.
I’ve heard David Mullen and Steve Yedlin talk about how you can get the 2 cameras to look virtually identical, but now seeing it is very interesting. 👍🏻
@@Meteotrance the dna lenses were originally developed for the alexa 65. they're rehoused vintage lenses. considering theyre for the 65 i'd guess maybe mamiya 645's but idk
I just want to point out that shooting through a beam splitter causes like a stop of light loss. So the Alexa 65 (the camera shooting through the glass and not the reflection) is a little contrast-y-er because of that.
Best comparaison ! Every possible combination and usage. The Arri 65 look absolutely stunning. Everything can match almost identically except the depth of field and the resolution of the sensor
so resolution and sensor size at play, but its the same as the m43 to full frame debate. the biggest advantage besides price is the ability to use faster glass with a m43 sensor to work in lower light output (also keeping budget down) without turning the image into a blured work of art. love a larger sensor but the need to stop to 5.6 to get a pleasing image depending on the directors desires is far from ideal in lower budget situations.
Would be cool to see an Alexa 65 mini. I feel like the Alev3 sensor is the holy grail for digital. I suppose the new Alev4 sensor will be the one in their next high large format camera though. 8k Alexa 65 with the Alev4 sensor? Would be unbelievable clean considering how clean the Alexa35 is.
This was an amazing side by side comparison and really helped open my eyes to understanding field of view and sensor size. The visual aid really made a difference to understanding the theory. Also those cameras and lenses are so well matched. Well done ARRI team!
Great test. Thank you for this. According to these tests and lenses used, the 65 is more truthful. The 65 is similar to how our own eyes see subjects in real life. The 65 also has better separation between subject and background. Also, since the 65 is a bigger sensor, it has better lowlight performance than the S35. The only con I can think of when using the 65 is nailing focus on fast moving subjects during Steadicam shots. Love both cameras.
I wonder how the exterior shot would compare if it was a bright partly cloudy to full sunny day. 8.25 um pixel pitch goodness. Yeah the AC deserves to be paid for their skill.
The Alexa Mini looks incredible. The Alexa LF look's otherworldly it, has a distractingly dramatic look to it, thanks to the shallow depth of field and vignetting.
Wow, all comparison tests should use a stereoscopic rig! I really love the vignetting and falloff of the DNA Primes on large format. Beautiful. But for a clean & even look it's clear that the Signatures Primes on S35 are really good. Far less barrel distortion and vignetting. Also for the low light exterior scenes, I think I prefer the smaller bokeh on the Mini. Personally I find really large bokeh in night scenes distracting, as it pulls your eye away from the subject. Great test, thanks for posting!
Great test that clearly demonstrates the "IMAX look" (and similarly the "Full-Frame Look") that people pretend doesn't exist. The lenses don't change, true... but the way you USE the camera at a given FOV CHANGES. That's what give it the "look" vs. smaller formats. It's easy to spot. I can always tell when something is shot on larger formats.
Some of these make sense though. Like at 2:22, the 70mm is gonna have a more compressed background compared to 35mm despite being at 2.8. Still an incredible comparison video, though. Great job!
Very intersting, thank you for sharing. The different lenses make it harder to compare, but when they are both using lenses from the same family it helps. I wish there was a test like this comparing the LF / LF Mini to the 65.
The LF is the 65 with the sides chopped off. The sensors have the same highs. If you extract a 1.85:1 image from the 65, you’re basically shooting on an LF. The difference is one stop if you’re cropping the LF for scope. It comes down to what’s practical not minute differences in depth of field or even noise an audience will never notice.
Thank you! Unfortunately, color is not comparable in this setup, due to the mirror of the 3D rig. It produces color tints and differences in contrast. But for me, color isn't necessarily a part of the "large format look". I think it's more dependent on the color science of a camera manufacturer (signal interpretation, color spaces, gamma, etc.) than on the actual sensor size.
It's hard to tell if these differences aren't mostly from lens differences. Medium format lenses tend to be very expensive and very high quality niche tools. The 35 mm lens is good too but it isn't as contrasty as the 70 mm and renders warm colors differently.
On the 65, the lenses used aren't larger to an extent (so when you use it on the Mini, you crop in. Amounting to less vignette). It does cover the whole sensor (for the 65), but the light entering the lens to the sensor is nearer to the edges of the glass elements, so you get vignetting. It's just physics.
Is the white balance on these cameras different? The mini has a warmer yellow hue while the 65 has a cooler color that shifts towards blue. Color corrected differently?
These test are truly professional level. N no shitty music or dilogue make it purely image based focus. Subbed you for these incredible test.thank you.
Awesome job. Lesson is both are two of the best digital cameras money can buy. That extra depth, detail, and less distortion in the 65 is awesome, but isn't crazy dramatic. Crazy tools for different scenarios and different budgets!
This is great and really shows the differences. I was so struck when I watched the series "dark" on Netflix. It was so rich, so textured, and just rendered the faces in such a beautiful, natural way. I felt it was like I was watching my old 6x7 contact sheets had come to life. When I later found out it was shot on the Alexa 65 it all made sense ; ).
That horrible horrible youtube compression really kills that wonderful test! The vimeo version is definitely better. Wish we could download an mp4 file. Thanks for the comparison well done!
An incredibly useful video. Even with UA-cam compression the Mini looked visibly noisy at 800, which is an ISO I see that camera at all the time but usually doesn't feel so noisy. Is that just because it's next to the 65 or is there something else going on?
Thanks! Parts of this test were shot under quite hard conditions, with a bit of underexposure to make the differences in noise performance more noticeable. Under perfect exposure conditions, the Mini could definitely be cleaner. It's also important to keep in mind that I used only a smaller part of the Alexa Mini's full sensor because the sensor is actually larger than s35mm in open gate mode. Under extreme conditions, where you're not able to get enough light level, the Alexa 65 can really help you with it's lower and finer-grained noise compared to the Mini.
The lenses and vignettes and all that, that doesn’t bother me that much. I feel like you can do that in post if you really wanted to (whether you should want to, is another discussion), what blew my mind most is how much difference there is in colour depth between these two cameras.
Love the Alexa mini but Alexa 65 has a 3d feel to it, subject just pops, 06:57 I guess Alexa LF will be a great middle-ground between these two beasts. Also, I've to say, brilliant comparison video, pure quality.
Maybe use the the same optics with the same focal length to get a reasonable result. As Person who worked 9 years on commercial projects with all kinds of Alexa’s. I can tell you that the primes with different focal lengths also have their own characteristics in exposure and this is what you can clearly see in this example. So therefore only test with the same focal length to get better comparison result. ✌️
Thanck you, very good test. I'm surprised, I imagine a super 35 sensor produces more distortion than a 65 sensor. I would be curious to see the difference between the 2 sensors / camera with 24mm and 12mm lenses
Thanks! I would say that the amount of distortion isn't necessarily dependent on the format size. Of course with a larger sensor, you can shoot on a longer focal length than on a smaller sensor, in order to get the same angle of view. But as we saw in the test, the amount of distortion isn't always determined by the focal length, but very much on the construction of the lens and how much the distortion is compensated inside the optic. Just think about the Zeiss Master primes that have barely visible distortion even at 12mm.
Another proof that the size of the sensor didn't make a huge difference, especialy in the digital world, on real analog film it's a bit different... Thanks for the effort put on this test.
The Alexa 65 has the cleaner image by far, but the mini has a brighter image corner to corner since they are stoping down the lens to match the maximum aperture of the large format lenses. Honestly, full frame is probably the perfect in between. Would love to see that as a side by side. (Super 35 vs full frame or full frame vs 65) Great side by side!
@@AllanEvansOfficial Actually, the color science is the same on both cameras. What causes the changes in color in this particular test setup is the mirror of the 3D rig. Also, ND Filters and different lenses may affect the image in color and contrast.
biggest upset is the wide angle. ive always assumed that using a larger sensor sort of would allow the camera closer with less distortion but that didnt seem to be the case.
This is the test i've been looking for! Feels like the larger format does help with distance related distortion for faces because of the longer focal length required than on S35 (for a similar given framing considering matching cam-subject-background distance). Now the only thing i'm wondering now is whether the wide angle lens 'perspective' (i guess?) is a factor when say you're dollying straight down a hallway close to the floor for example and whether that feeling of movement per distance traveled is greater with the smaller format (due to use of wider lenses) than on LF/A65..
One thing that really messes with me when using a full frame lens on s35 is that the flaring and lens character on gets cut completely on the edges and that is a really big notice for me. not on these lenses but the Richard Gale Clavius lenses for example on s35 vs Lf/vv look completely different when they are flaring or wide open since they have distinct edge character. These lenses are really perfect edge to edge so character wise your not cutting out any edge swirl or bowing more jus playing with image compression and fov.
This is so interesting. The depth compression effect was way less than I was expecting. Almost irrelevant. How come there's so much vignetting on the 65? Are the lenses' image circles designed for full frame rather than the 65? UA-cam totally destroys the blacks, so noise test is difficult to tell any results here anyway
Yes, that's because depth compression is a matter of perspective (camera position) and not changing with focal length or sensor size. The vignetting comes with the large sensor of the Alexa 65 using a much larger area of the image circle of the DNA Primes, where they start vignetting
The 65 have a little better skins and shadows are deeper, mini's image is also really pleasing to the eye not as good as the 65 but due to budget constraints I would choose my Realme 7 smartphone's camera ✌
Both cameras are supposed to have the same color science and sensor, however the color reproduction is different (Alexa Mini skin tones in low light look more Yellowish vs the Alex 65 Redish/Orangey. Also the 65 seems to crush the blacks based on those underexposed shots and the Mini preserves more details? In my opinion the Mini looks better in low light then the 65...
Amazing comparison! The differences are bigger than expected. But what happened to the first comparison? the 45mm lens on the Alex 65 seems to have a strange field of focus curvature, not seen on the one mounted on the Alexa Mini. On first instance i felt a tilt/shift vibe going on.
its like with the red camera´s the smaller red camera had good results but where outclassed by the bigger sensor in the end ... the same happend here 9:40 well we could argue that the f-stop and the lens where not exactly the same but the right picture is a lot better
Based on image aesthetics I'd go with the 65, but based on my budget I went with my Panasonic G7.
a mood
based on my budget i will choose my camera phone
Based on image and budget I choose a used Alexa Classic, relative cheap and same quality of Mini.
Basically
LOL best comment!
This is the most incredible side by side test I have ever seen.
side inside :D
Thank you for helping me choose between these two cameras😂
🤣
:)
Lol !
Hands down the best lens/camera combo test I've seen in a decade, thank you sir, well done!
I love how in this whole test the alexa 65 reminds me of the classic nolan look cause of the bigger sensor.
probably just in your head
@@kendrickgray2873 well I don't think so...nolan is known for using larger format and the outcome is distinct
And IMAX makes the Alexa 65 look tiny. Thats over 2.5 times the size of the Alexa 65.
@@vlcheish and you just can’t shoot with imax because you need cranes and huge rigs to carry it.
@@stel1000 Obviously. They weigh over 100KG. They are also noisy but all of these drawbacks have nothing to do with my original comment.
Crazy how different they are in every aspect the 65 just looks effortless.
I have to say after learning how to use a 3D beam splitter at one point for stereo, I'm so so glad someone finally saw the potential in the rig for 2D testing purposes. Thank you thank you, keep it coming with anamorphic FF vs 4-perf
Why can't all reviews be like this? No loud music intro or branding yourself as some shitty UA-cam name like Wesley Pipes or Michael J Cox? Just straight vid. You sir got my sub.
Who wouldn't want the 65? But, I'd be super happy with the Mini. Great comparisons. The Alexas are amazing cameras.
These days I think I'm going against the grain a little but I really love the s35 look. I've always found that larger formats flatten the image more, which might sound counterintuitive as they offer more depth but I feel like the longer focal lengths that they demand often look flatter. I also feel like the extra depth when used to too much of an extent takes me out of the story somehow, I think that I'd rather see more separation achieved through better set design, lighting, wardrobe rather than just a blurrier background.
I do wonder whether my thoughts on it may change as more cinematographers embrace ff and the generally accepted look of films becomes that larger sensor. For now though, what an excellent resource for DPs, many thanks for the hours that will have been put into this.
I agree with what you say for the most part and recently I have fallen in love with deep focus and like you say creating separation through set design as blurry footage looks almost fake in a way. But, as much as a bigger sensor adds more blur into an image reducing the f-stop will increase the depth of field. And this is why I stand by something like the 65 as you get that large format feel with the choice to have deep focus.
@@tomfodenfilm I completely agree with everything that you're saying, I agree with you about stopping down too. When you do that it lays out the true meaningful differences between large and small sensor sizes (in my opinion). Larger offers more true to life lines, a more crop-into-able image due to using a larger optical plane of the lens. Smaller is a more distorted image (something that I massively favour however much of a negative it may seem) a wider selection of glass choice and generally less expense for a production to manage.
All in all I think that both s35 and large formats ultimately have their own places (as do other sizes s16 etc, let's not forget those) and are here to stay. I think people should be considered in their choices just like you highlighted in your comment and not just go with the 'bigger and shallower is always better', approach.
@@thelightpainters To right man!
I 100% agree not stopping down which is usually a big issue with small budgets though I don't agree about s35 over FF. Are there specific movies/tv out there that you can point to shot with Arri LF, 65, Red Helium/Monstro that you feel would be better in s35?
@@vlcheish thanks for dropping a comment but I'm personally not sure that's the general feeling around in the industry at the moment. Yes, we are definitely seeing a big increase in FF for lots of reasons aesthetic being a big one of course but also the 'in thing' factor and the Netflix pixel count conundrum are big contributors. This all being said though, if it were simply true that FF was just an outright better medium to S35 why would Arri currently be developing a new line of S35 camera, why would people still film on S16 and why would the industry not have jumped on the FF bandwagon sooner? It's because it's a stylistic choice and a choice of practicality. All I was saying was simply that I'm not personally YET a convert to the look and feel of FF compared to S35.
Having said all of that the ultimate difference between the two when a talented DP is behind the camera can be subtle and it's definitely not to say that I outright wouldn't appreciate the look and feel of a movie because it was shot FF. I think that it's great that we now have more choice between looks and that FF has become available. Is it here to stay? Heck yer and so it should, it creates a more natural 'true to life' look and the way that it can utilise the image circle of vintage lenses to a greater degree is really lovely but it's a different tool not a better one, not a worse one.
What. A. Test. Most incredible quality test i've ever seen, thank you sir for that!
This is far and away the best sensor size comparison I have ever seen. Thank you so much for producing this.
This is the pinnacle of comparos. Those DNA lenses are incredible
I’ve heard David Mullen and Steve Yedlin talk about how you can get the 2 cameras to look virtually identical, but now seeing it is very interesting. 👍🏻
This looks so nice
I wish someone made a similar comparison video for Arri Mini and RED Gemini.
I never had the money to get a hold of a stereoscopic rig to compare two cameras. I’m glad someone did.
this test makes you think... how important audio is!
for sure.. its hard to watch. no offense.
even if it was some random cheesy track it would be better.
Broh just amazing
Best way to understand 35mm equilibrium and quality of bigger formats
Some pretty serious vignetting on the 65, still looks incredible. Are there lenses specifically made for the 65's sensor?
I saw that too i wonder if they realy made for that large sensor.
@@Meteotrance the dna lenses were originally developed for the alexa 65. they're rehoused vintage lenses. considering theyre for the 65 i'd guess maybe mamiya 645's but idk
@@JPC4 That would definetly explain the vignetting. Thanks for the info.
This test is awesome and quite frankly should be the benchmark and standard method for any camera comparison !
Stereoscopic rig with camera movement 👏🏻👏🏻 well done.
I just want to point out that shooting through a beam splitter causes like a stop of light loss. So the Alexa 65 (the camera shooting through the glass and not the reflection) is a little contrast-y-er because of that.
So that's that, I can't figure out how they managed to have this perfect alignment
Best comparaison ! Every possible combination and usage. The Arri 65 look absolutely stunning. Everything can match almost identically except the depth of field and the resolution of the sensor
so resolution and sensor size at play, but its the same as the m43 to full frame debate. the biggest advantage besides price is the ability to use faster glass with a m43 sensor to work in lower light output (also keeping budget down) without turning the image into a blured work of art. love a larger sensor but the need to stop to 5.6 to get a pleasing image depending on the directors desires is far from ideal in lower budget situations.
This is so incredible. By far the best side by side comparison test. So practical!
Would be cool to see an Alexa 65 mini. I feel like the Alev3 sensor is the holy grail for digital. I suppose the new Alev4 sensor will be the one in their next high large format camera though. 8k Alexa 65 with the Alev4 sensor? Would be unbelievable clean considering how clean the Alexa35 is.
Most important, mythbusting and scientific comparison. Stunning.
This was an amazing side by side comparison and really helped open my eyes to understanding field of view and sensor size. The visual aid really made a difference to understanding the theory. Also those cameras and lenses are so well matched. Well done ARRI team!
Great test. Thank you for this. According to these tests and lenses used, the 65 is more truthful. The 65 is similar to how our own eyes see subjects in real life. The 65 also has better separation between subject and background. Also, since the 65 is a bigger sensor, it has better lowlight performance than the S35. The only con I can think of when using the 65 is nailing focus on fast moving subjects during Steadicam shots. Love both cameras.
I wonder how the exterior shot would compare if it was a bright partly cloudy to full sunny day. 8.25 um pixel pitch goodness. Yeah the AC deserves to be paid for their skill.
The Alexa Mini looks incredible.
The Alexa LF look's otherworldly it, has a distractingly dramatic look to it, thanks to the shallow depth of field and vignetting.
Wow, all comparison tests should use a stereoscopic rig!
I really love the vignetting and falloff of the DNA Primes on large format. Beautiful.
But for a clean & even look it's clear that the Signatures Primes on S35 are really good. Far less barrel distortion and vignetting.
Also for the low light exterior scenes, I think I prefer the smaller bokeh on the Mini. Personally I find really large bokeh in night scenes distracting, as it pulls your eye away from the subject.
Great test, thanks for posting!
Great test that clearly demonstrates the "IMAX look" (and similarly the "Full-Frame Look") that people pretend doesn't exist. The lenses don't change, true... but the way you USE the camera at a given FOV CHANGES. That's what give it the "look" vs. smaller formats. It's easy to spot. I can always tell when something is shot on larger formats.
The first shot comparison said it all. The field of view on the 65 is ridiculous!!!. watching from Kenya, keep up the good work.
Some of these make sense though. Like at 2:22, the 70mm is gonna have a more compressed background compared to 35mm despite being at 2.8. Still an incredible comparison video, though. Great job!
What do you mean with "more compressed background". The perspective is the same, the only difference I notice is the different depth of field.
Very intersting, thank you for sharing. The different lenses make it harder to compare, but when they are both using lenses from the same family it helps. I wish there was a test like this comparing the LF / LF Mini to the 65.
The LF is the 65 with the sides chopped off. The sensors have the same highs. If you extract a 1.85:1 image from the 65, you’re basically shooting on an LF. The difference is one stop if you’re cropping the LF for scope. It comes down to what’s practical not minute differences in depth of field or even noise an audience will never notice.
Phenomenal test! The perfect companion to Steve Yedlin's article. In some shots the Alexa Mini was a bit green, is that due to the beam splitter?
Thank you! Unfortunately, color is not comparable in this setup, due to the mirror of the 3D rig. It produces color tints and differences in contrast. But for me, color isn't necessarily a part of the "large format look". I think it's more dependent on the color science of a camera manufacturer (signal interpretation, color spaces, gamma, etc.) than on the actual sensor size.
this really shows how well the bigger Arri chips can handle being compressed to hell and back, and still look AMAZING>
It's hard to tell if these differences aren't mostly from lens differences. Medium format lenses tend to be very expensive and very high quality niche tools. The 35 mm lens is good too but it isn't as contrasty as the 70 mm and renders warm colors differently.
One of the best camera tests Ive seen.. thanks!!
This is such a well made test man, well done!
Even with grainer images they somehow make it look more pleasing. ARRI is undefeated
This is a really great visual demonstration of how sensor size affects depth of field.
Is it just me or dose the Alexa 65 have crazy Vignetting
It's most likely lens not camera.
I mean the sensor pretty much told the lens to fuck off
That happens w longer lenses
@@VilkanVisions yes but the signature primes are meant to cover the full 65 sensor so it doesnt make sense.
On the 65, the lenses used aren't larger to an extent (so when you use it on the Mini, you crop in. Amounting to less vignette). It does cover the whole sensor (for the 65), but the light entering the lens to the sensor is nearer to the edges of the glass elements, so you get vignetting. It's just physics.
The Shot at 10:25 is the most mind blowing. The difference is 🌙 and ☀️ !!!
Looking at both footage ..I think I will stick to my phone camera as I m broke 😂😂
This is immaculate! This is how a test should be done
Ok, you made me chose the LF....Now where's your amazon-link??
One of the greatest comparisons ever seen 💪🏻✊🏻
Why is the arri Alexa 65 with vignette? The mini seems more neutral
It’s the lens, I guess
Yeah I noticed it too. Heavier vignette and slightly cooler colours as well. Could be the lens. Not all DNA lenses are evenly matched, I think.
Fantastic comparison test! Beautifully done, correct detailing, the best I have seen on YT! Thanks and Great Job!!!
Most underrated video of all times
Is the white balance on these cameras different? The mini has a warmer yellow hue while the 65 has a cooler color that shifts towards blue. Color corrected differently?
One is shooting through a 2 way mirror and one is shooting into the reflective side so there will be minor color differences.
I sorta prefer s35. But I’m a fan of deeper focus. Great video!
Very well made video to show the benefits of every focal length lenses to choose for cinematic representation.
These test are truly professional level. N no shitty music or dilogue make it purely image based focus. Subbed you for these incredible test.thank you.
never seen a comparison like this, really incredible 🙂
Awesome job. Lesson is both are two of the best digital cameras money can buy. That extra depth, detail, and less distortion in the 65 is awesome, but isn't crazy dramatic. Crazy tools for different scenarios and different budgets!
The ARRI Alexa 65 got that very expensive look. Effortless cinematic, deep colors, nice roll off. There's no comparaison in my opinion.
My eyes are consistently drawn to the 65 images. I will say the mini colors are more true to life imo tho.
....damn they’re both gorgeous... still dreaming of that mini, though...
This is great and really shows the differences. I was so struck when I watched the series "dark" on Netflix. It was so rich, so textured, and just rendered the faces in such a beautiful, natural way. I felt it was like I was watching my old 6x7 contact sheets had come to life. When I later found out it was shot on the Alexa 65 it all made sense ; ).
Wow! I'm torn between these two. I might as well get them both
Big man. Get me one too
@@nonsoville No problem. I'll buy three then when I win the lottery next week Friday.
That horrible horrible youtube compression really kills that wonderful test! The vimeo version is definitely better. Wish we could download an mp4 file. Thanks for the comparison well done!
Great Job! Alexa Mini on 18mm showed signs of noise where as Alexa 65 on 35mm was clean, did you guys notice it @ 3:24
Damn bruh that dof test really blown me away!
An incredibly useful video. Even with UA-cam compression the Mini looked visibly noisy at 800, which is an ISO I see that camera at all the time but usually doesn't feel so noisy. Is that just because it's next to the 65 or is there something else going on?
Thanks! Parts of this test were shot under quite hard conditions, with a bit of underexposure to make the differences in noise performance more noticeable. Under perfect exposure conditions, the Mini could definitely be cleaner. It's also important to keep in mind that I used only a smaller part of the Alexa Mini's full sensor because the sensor is actually larger than s35mm in open gate mode. Under extreme conditions, where you're not able to get enough light level, the Alexa 65 can really help you with it's lower and finer-grained noise compared to the Mini.
You cannot judge noise performance based on a 1440p UA-cam upload. You might be able to make an educated guess based on a 4K upload but not 1440p.
@@kemalettinsrt What makes you say that?
Well, this is an awesome test. You have given me enough arguments to now ony fantasize about ever using the Alexa 65 instead of the Alexa Mini. 😂
The lenses and vignettes and all that, that doesn’t bother me that much. I feel like you can do that in post if you really wanted to (whether you should want to, is another discussion), what blew my mind most is how much difference there is in colour depth between these two cameras.
The depth of field difference is massive
Love the Alexa mini but Alexa 65 has a 3d feel to it, subject just pops, 06:57
I guess Alexa LF will be a great middle-ground between these two beasts. Also, I've to say, brilliant comparison video, pure quality.
really helpful video! thank you for the effort and i’m looking forward to see more comparisons done with different lens brands.
Maybe use the the same optics with the same focal length to get a reasonable result. As Person who worked 9 years on commercial projects with all kinds of Alexa’s. I can tell you that the primes with different focal lengths also have their own characteristics in exposure and this is what you can clearly see in this example. So therefore only test with the same focal length to get better comparison result. ✌️
Thanck you, very good test. I'm surprised, I imagine a super 35 sensor produces more distortion than a 65 sensor. I would be curious to see the difference between the 2 sensors / camera with 24mm and 12mm lenses
Pretty sure it's him using DNA Primes on the 65 and the way better Signature Primes on the mini for the distortion shot, skewing the result
Thanks! I would say that the amount of distortion isn't necessarily dependent on the format size. Of course with a larger sensor, you can shoot on a longer focal length than on a smaller sensor, in order to get the same angle of view. But as we saw in the test, the amount of distortion isn't always determined by the focal length, but very much on the construction of the lens and how much the distortion is compensated inside the optic. Just think about the Zeiss Master primes that have barely visible distortion even at 12mm.
My Alexa Classic will never die
6:00 Wait How 35mm is more distorted than 18mm ?
Perhaps if we opened up the Signature to T/1.8, you can really get that Large Format separation. I’m curious to know
Another proof that the size of the sensor didn't make a huge difference, especialy in the digital world, on real analog film it's a bit different... Thanks for the effort put on this test.
A very good comparison video!! Thanks man!! Hope to see more!!
Great video! I'd love to see a comparison like that between the Alexa 35 and the Mini LF!
6:00 Wait How 35mm is more distorted than 18mm ?
The 65 is simply stunning
Schönes Endresultat, war cool euch bei der Produktion durchs Rental unterstützen zu können :)
The Alexa 65 has the cleaner image by far, but the mini has a brighter image corner to corner since they are stoping down the lens to match the maximum aperture of the large format lenses.
Honestly, full frame is probably the perfect in between. Would love to see that as a side by side. (Super 35 vs full frame or full frame vs 65)
Great side by side!
Why is there more saturation in the shadows of the LF? In he portrait shot you can even see there's a green tint in the shadows
Of course same color science same!
What is amazing is how a 10 years old Alexa classic is still able to compete with new Alexa mini, LF and 65
@@AllanEvansOfficial Actually, the color science is the same on both cameras. What causes the changes in color in this particular test setup is the mirror of the 3D rig. Also, ND Filters and different lenses may affect the image in color and contrast.
Now Im sure to get the 65! Thanks. Oh wait...
Rent 😉
biggest upset is the wide angle. ive always assumed that using a larger sensor sort of would allow the camera closer with less distortion but that didnt seem to be the case.
This is the test i've been looking for! Feels like the larger format does help with distance related distortion for faces because of the longer focal length required than on S35 (for a similar given framing considering matching cam-subject-background distance).
Now the only thing i'm wondering now is whether the wide angle lens 'perspective' (i guess?) is a factor when say you're dollying straight down a hallway close to the floor for example and whether that feeling of movement per distance traveled is greater with the smaller format (due to use of wider lenses) than on LF/A65..
i was stuck on which one to get but you helped me decide thank you
Thank you! Killer video, the side-by-side done properly. Excited for more :-)
One thing that really messes with me when using a full frame lens on s35 is that the flaring and lens character on gets cut completely on the edges and that is a really big notice for me. not on these lenses but the Richard Gale Clavius lenses for example on s35 vs Lf/vv look completely different when they are flaring or wide open since they have distinct edge character. These lenses are really perfect edge to edge so character wise your not cutting out any edge swirl or bowing more jus playing with image compression and fov.
looks just the same to me.
This is so interesting. The depth compression effect was way less than I was expecting. Almost irrelevant.
How come there's so much vignetting on the 65? Are the lenses' image circles designed for full frame rather than the 65?
UA-cam totally destroys the blacks, so noise test is difficult to tell any results here anyway
Yes, that's because depth compression is a matter of perspective (camera position) and not changing with focal length or sensor size. The vignetting comes with the large sensor of the Alexa 65 using a much larger area of the image circle of the DNA Primes, where they start vignetting
@@manuelluebbers Can you explain the "matter of perspective" thing?
The 65 have a little better skins and shadows are deeper, mini's image is also really pleasing to the eye not as good as the 65 but due to budget constraints I would choose my Realme 7 smartphone's camera ✌
I was not expecting the 65 to be this good
Arri Alexa 65 is the camera used in many Hollywood blockbusters. It should be good.
Both cameras are supposed to have the same color science and sensor, however the color reproduction is different (Alexa Mini skin tones in low light look more Yellowish vs the Alex 65 Redish/Orangey. Also the 65 seems to crush the blacks based on those underexposed shots and the Mini preserves more details? In my opinion the Mini looks better in low light then the 65...
no amazon affiliate link to the 65?
Love this test. Thank you!
Excellent test. Thanks for doing this
Amazing comparison! The differences are bigger than expected. But what happened to the first comparison? the 45mm lens on the Alex 65 seems to have a strange field of focus curvature, not seen on the one mounted on the Alexa Mini. On first instance i felt a tilt/shift vibe going on.
its like with the red camera´s
the smaller red camera had good results but where outclassed by the bigger sensor in the end ...
the same happend here
9:40 well we could argue that the f-stop and the lens where not exactly the same but the right picture is a lot better
Dude thank you!!! Thank you very much!!! This is very helpful and interesting for people like us!!! This is fantastic!!!
Am I the only one that prefers the look of the Alexa mini with the Signature Prime lenses? ahahah
yeah
Me 2 man it looks more flattering to me especially on a women's face