FUJIFILM GFX ETERNA 55 and ARRI ALEXA 35 Compared in Practice by Strada’s Michael Cioni

How To

by Nino LeitnerApril 13^th, 2026

Subscribe to How To

In a new long-form video on the Strada YouTube channel, filmmaker and tech innovator Michael Cioni explores the FUJIFILM GFX ETERNA 55 alongside Panavision Ultra Panatar II 1.3x anamorphic lenses and the Strada Connect peer-to-peer editing platform. Through a purpose-built short film and a series of side-by-side comparisons with the ARRI ALEXA 35, the video dives deep into sensor geometry, crop factor math, color reproduction, and a fully remote post-production workflow.

The video, which is a collaboration with FUJIFILM, sees Cioni and cinematographer Shannon Stutenroth shoot a short narrative film called “Work in Progress,” set in an art gallery, specifically designed to put the FUJIFILM GFX ETERNA 55 through its paces in three distinct areas: sensor geometry and field of view, dynamic range and color science, and a complete cloud-free post-production pipeline using Strada Connect. For those who have been following CineD’s extensive coverage of the ETERNA 55, from Johnnie’s first-look review to our coverage of the camera’s IMAX certification and firmware updates, this video adds another perspective to the conversation, particularly around the practical creative implications of working with a 55mm sensor diagonal.

The math behind the 55mm format

Cioni opens by framing the FUJIFILM GFX ETERNA 55’s sensor in historical terms. With a sensor measuring roughly 44mm wide by 33mm tall and a diagonal of 55mm, the camera captures images comparable in area to 65mm film, which, when exposed vertically with sprocket holes removed, yields a usable diagonal of about 57mm. This is relevant context in a year where large format cinematography is firmly in the spotlight: at the 2026 Oscars, cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw, ASC made history by winning Best Cinematography for “Sinners,” a film that combined IMAX and Ultra Panavision 70 on 65mm film.

The video’s core argument is straightforward: a bigger sensor changes what lenses do, and that changes how images feel. To illustrate this, Cioni sets up a controlled comparison between the ETERNA 55 and the ARRI ALEXA 35, using identical Panavision Ultra Panatar II lenses.

Crop factor and the geometry of a big sensor

The comparison tests are the centerpiece of the video. With both cameras locked at 11 feet, 8 inches from the actors and using the same 65mm UP2 lens, the ALEXA 35’s smaller sensor (roughly 60% smaller than the ETERNA 55) immediately narrows the field of view. Cioni calculates the crop factor by dividing the ETERNA 55’s 44mm sensor width by the ALEXA 35’s 28mm width, arriving at approximately 1.6x. This means any given lens will produce a roughly 1.6 times narrower field of view on the ALEXA 35.

To match the ETERNA 55’s framing with a 65mm lens, the team first swaps to a 40mm UP2 on the ALEXA 35 and pulls the dolly back about 2 feet. The side-by-side composites confirm the subjects match in size, but the backgrounds change dramatically: on the ETERNA 55 (closer to the subjects on a longer focal length), the background appears further away with shallower depth of field, while the ALEXA 35 compresses the background closer. In a second test, keeping the same 65mm lens on both cameras, the team backs the ALEXA 35 up to 18.7 feet (multiplying the original 11.7-foot distance by the 1.6x crop factor). Even with matched framing, the background compression differences persist.

Cioni is careful to note these differences are not about one camera being “better” than the other. The ARRI ALEXA 35 remains an industry-standard tool, and the compressed background look has its own creative merits. But for filmmakers specifically seeking more depth, more dimensional separation between subject and background, and the optical advantage of being closer on a longer focal length with a wider field of view, the 55mm sensor format offers something a 35mm or full-frame sensor fundamentally cannot.

It is worth mentioning, though, that comparing the ALEXA 35 directly to the GFX ETERNA 55 is a bit of an apples-to-oranges exercise. These are cameras designed for very different segments of the market, at very different price points, with very different ecosystems. The ALEXA 35 is a Super 35 cinema workhorse built for the highest tier of professional production, while the ETERNA 55 is a large format newcomer at a fraction of the cost. The geometric differences Cioni demonstrates are real and well-illustrated, but they are ultimately inherent to any sensor size comparison. A fairer framing might have been the ARRI ALEXA 65 or ALEXA Mini LF, which play in a more comparable large format space. That said, Cioni’s choice of the ALEXA 35 as a reference likely reflects its prevalence as the current industry-standard camera, making it the most relatable benchmark for working cinematographers.

1.3x anamorphic on a 1.33:1 sensor

One of the more compelling optical arguments in the video involves the math of pairing the UP2’s 1.3x squeeze with the ETERNA 55’s native 1.33:1 aspect ratio. Multiplying the two yields 1.73:1, which is 97% of 16:9. In practice, this means the camera can shoot open gate using the full sensor area, and with only a 3% crop, deliver a full UHD image that approximates the recording area of 65mm film. There is virtually no wasted sensor real estate.

The Panavision Ultra Panatar II lenses, designed to cover the ETERNA 55’s large image circle, bring their own character to this equation: elliptical bokeh that gives rack focuses a more expressive quality, subtle chromatic aberration that smooths skin tones, and controlled lens breathing. Cioni describes the resulting combination as images that feel “both soft and sharp,” with the sensor’s size adding a distinctive sense of scale. Worth noting: these are rental-only Panavision lenses, so this particular combination will be limited to productions going through Panavision’s global rental network.

Format flexibility and vertical crops

An interesting side note in the video concerns aspect ratio flexibility. Because the ETERNA 55’s field of view is inherently wider for any given focal length, it offers more room when reformatting. Cioni demonstrates 9:16 portrait extractions on both cameras: the ALEXA 35’s narrower field of view compresses the subject against the background, while the ETERNA 55 retains more visible environment and background separation. In an era where productions increasingly need to deliver across multiple aspect ratios, including vertical formats for social media, this is a practical workflow advantage.

Dynamic range and color: ProRes HQ vs. ProRes RAW vs. ARRI RAW

For the second part of the test, Cioni enlists freelance colorist Nick Lareau to evaluate the ETERNA 55’s image quality. The highest quality internal recording format is ProRes HQ, a 10-bit 4:2:2 intra-frame codec recording at approximately 1 GB per second. For RAW recording, the ETERNA 55 outputs through HDMI or SDI to an Atomos Ninja TX, which captures ProRes RAW. The team also shoots the same setup on an ALEXA 35 recording ARRI RAW for reference.

The footage is graded using FUJIFILM’s new F-Log2C wide gamut color space, which improves color reproduction of high chroma colors for better skin tones and color accuracy. At 4K resolution, the quality differences between ProRes HQ, ProRes RAW, and ARRI RAW are not immediately visible. At 500% magnification, the ProRes RAW grain structure is the finest of the three, ProRes HQ softens the grain slightly due to compression, and the ALEXA 35 sits somewhere in between. Skin tone rendering across all three is strong.

The takeaway is nuanced: RAW recording offers advantages for some productions, but ProRes HQ delivers a straightforward, edit-ready workflow with minimal visible quality loss under controlled lighting conditions. Cioni encourages filmmakers to conduct their own tests to determine which recording format suits their specific needs.

Strada Connect and the remote editing workflow

The third section of the video introduces what Cioni calls “an entirely new way of working” using Strada Connect, which he describes as the world’s first peer-to-peer remote editing technology. We have covered Strada extensively at CineD, from the platform’s beta launch to its camera-to-editor file transfer tests and the OWC strategic investment.

The workflow leverages the ETERNA 55’s dual-recording capability: the camera simultaneously captures open-gate ProRes hero files and lightweight H.264 proxy files onto the same CFexpress Type B card (OWC Atlas Ultra cards in this case). FUJIFILM separates the proxy files into their own folder structure on the card, so media management is clean from the start. The proxies are encoded in camera at approximately 12 MB per second, roughly 80 times smaller than the ProRes hero files at around 1 GB per second.

On set, DIT Urban Olsson transfers these proxy files (along with broadcast WAV audio) directly from his cart to a 128 TB OWC Thunderbay Flex 8 connected to a Mac Studio M4 located in Cioni’s Hollywood production office, miles away from the downtown Los Angeles set. Because Strada Connect is peer-to-peer, no cloud storage is involved and internet bandwidth is not a major factor given the small proxy file sizes.

The editor for the project is Ryan Connolly, creator and host of Film Riot, working from Dallas, Texas, nearly 1,500 miles away. Using Strada Connect, Connolly mounts the OWC Thunderbay in Los Angeles directly on his computer, creating a virtual file system that behaves like locally attached storage. He edits in Premiere Pro, importing footage directly from Strada without any file transfers or uploads. Connolly describes the experience as indistinguishable from editing locally, with no perceptible lag. The proxy files share the same timecode and clip names as the originals (with a “_p” suffix), enabling a straightforward relink to the ProRes hero files after locking the cut.

Cioni notes that he edited the entire Strada video episode himself in Final Cut Pro on a laptop, referencing nearly 7 TB of footage, none of which was uploaded to a cloud or transferred to a local drive. Everything ran through Strada Connect.

The broader context: accessible large format

Cioni closes the video with a historical parallel. Twenty years ago, RED made Super 35 acquisition accessible to independent filmmakers with a $17,000 camera. Today, with Hollywood increasingly gravitating toward larger format acquisition to differentiate the theatrical experience (films like “Oppenheimer,” “Sinners,” “One Battle After Another,” and “Begonia” shot on IMAX, 65mm film, or VistaVision), FUJIFILM is positioned to make 55mm/large format cinematography accessible at a $16,500 price point.

It is worth noting, obvously, that the ETERNA 55’s real-world cost of ownership extends beyond the body price. As a FUJIFILM collaboration, the video naturally presents the ETERNA 55 in its most favorable context. Independent filmmakers evaluating the camera will want to factor in the full ecosystem cost and consider which components of this particular setup are essential for their own productions versus the aspirational high-end configuration shown here.

That said, the geometric advantages of a 55mm sensor are optical facts, not marketing. The crop factor math, the field of view differences, and the depth characteristics Cioni demonstrates are inherent properties of the sensor size and hold true regardless of which lenses you pair with the camera.

What do you think of the geometric and depth-of-field differences Cioni demonstrates between the FUJIFILM GFX ETERNA 55 and the ARRI ALEXA 35? Is the 55mm large format sensor a meaningful creative tool for your work, or does the ecosystem cost make it impractical? Don’t hesitate to let us know in the comments below!

Editors note: A previous version of this article stated that the Alexa 35 sensor is “roughly 40% smaller than Eterna 55”, which was wrong. The actual number is 37.69% of the size, or 62.31% smaller. The wording above has been corrected to reflect this.