Alexa HD !!

[RivaiC]

Funny thing is, Arri was all about 4K until they positioned the Alexa as their front-running camera. They are talking 4K again, at least their USA people are. I disagree with your resolution assessment, and so does Arri's own publications on the matter from a few years ago. When properly displayed, which is the key here, a 4K image is night and day different than a 2K one. Plain and simple, if you can't distinguish the extra detail and resolution there are two possible issues. 1> Your eyes suck. 2> The image isn't being shown properly. As we go to resolutions greater than 2K, I do think that it becomes a secondary issue next to color gamut, DR, and other optical properties. However, after seeing quite a bit of properly shown 4K lately, it's very difficult to step back to 2K. To my eyes, the difference is the same as stepping back from 1080p to 480p. And it's roughly the same jump in pixel density or detail between 2K and 4K, so it makes sense.

When showing at 2K, there is no discernible difference between 2K and 4K sources as long as the 2K source was acquired in a way that allows for most or all of the 2K raster to maintain nominal resolution. Which is the case with the Alexa, at 2.8K acquisition.

I agree with dynamic range to some extent, but we have to be realistic here in how we talk about DR. The EPIC and Alexa both handle well in terms of DR and already can acquire more than most display systems can reproduce. Film projection can muster whatever is represented on the print, less a stop or so. The newer laser projection systems claim to out-do this, but I have not seen any confirmation of that. Although they do look rather impressive when properly set up.

For me, color rendition and gamut are the primary concerns in showing an image. Resolution comes in second place for me because I'm a huge fan of detail and texture. There is no 2K system out there that can fully represent the texture and detail we get with a S35mm master print. However, 4K can accomplish this, or close enough most people can't tell. Arri knows this -- they spent a few years trying to convince an entire industry with this in regards to their 4K film scanning and laser printing systems.



Just wait until these companies move their ASIC design to < 22nm production and we take another drop in size for the same amount of features. Honestly, I'd love a camera that is little bigger than a rear lens cap. Think how awesome that would be with larger lenses like an Optimo 12X... One could rig up the lens like a rifle, complete with shoulder stock and eyepiece. It could be very ergonomic. And the first people to do it will probably be arrested as potential terrorists when they pull one out in public.

I feel we have a bit of limitation here discussing on a forum without actually showing it what you or me are experiencing. It's obvious i have no idea what you see there and you have no idea what i see here. I personally dont find Alexa and Epic resolution is night and day. It's very different from your post above where you feel watching 2K and 480 in comparison. Not at all in my case. Is there a difference ? Yes, but vastly different ? No. I have seen Alexa and Epic in 4K projector but it is not easy to distinguish which is which, often the guess is wrong. If my eye suck, then so do everyone who seen it from the projection room. If you are here, i will be interested to show you and you tell me which source that it comes from. Now, that will be a real discussion rather than posting it like this in the forum.

Oh yes, i do agree with you about Arri conspiracy convincing market on 2K. To me, they just dont have the technology to output 4K uncompressed yet. I cannot imagine how big the data will be. Without compression, we are not going to have sensible data payload for post. That's all i know. Hardcore and all the big players may have all of the resource for petabyte but simply not for the mass yet. My conclusion is not influence by Arri preaching, it's purely from what i saw from different type of test.

 

[RivaiC]

:biggrin: and Action

[/URL][/IMG]

I have to admit, the last picture does look a bit funny

 

[luigivaltulini]

Were you just monitoring out of the BM Extreme 4K card thru Resolve or did you actually conform/master everything at the same resolution? And what was your ALEXA source?

Just yesterday I was able to screen some anamorphic test material (Panavision 2x Ana) that was shot ALEXA 4:3 ARRIRAW, F65 RAW, and EPIC 5K ANA. Everything was graded from Raw in Resolve and output at 3840x2160. This was then played out of the new Sony Commercial 4K Projector onto a 12ft screen. The F65 material was hampered by poor debayering within Resolve but the ALEXA/EPIC material was almost indistinguishable in terms of discernable resolution. Color was a different matter...

Ciao Adrian,
in anamorphic there are no visual differences, or very few, that's because the sensor is cropped to 3296x2700 Epic and Arri have the maximum resolution 2880 x 2160 4:3 from the sensor.
No I have not shot in anamorphic, in fact I do not like sucks as a format, but it 's just my personal taste,
I shot with Epic 5kHD RAW 4800x2700 (16/9) and Arri XT RAW 2880 x 1620 (16, 9) all at 25 frames and out of the Blackmagic at 3840x2160p25 and the difference was remarkable.

Luigi

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Ciao Adrian,
in anamorphic there are no visual differences, or very few, that's because the sensor is cropped to 3296x2700 Epic and Arri have the maximum resolution 2880 x 2160 4:3 from the sensor.
No I have not shot in anamorphic, in fact I do not like sucks as a format, but it 's just my personal taste,
I shot with Epic 5kHD RAW 4800x2700 (16/9) and Arri XT RAW 2880 x 1620 (16, 9) all at 25 frames and out of the Blackmagic at 3840x2160p25 and the difference was remarkable.

Luigi

I believe you need to scale/conform the footage properly from Raw before playing out. My test was output as ProRes 4444 3840x2160. We shot anamorphic and spherical. The spherical material between ALEXA/EPIC was likewise hard to tell apart. I've got to agree with Rivai here. If the material is properly mastered the differences are not as big as one would expect...

 

[luigivaltulini]

I believe you need to scale/conform the footage properly from Raw before playing out. My test was output as ProRes 4444 3840x2160. We shot anamorphic and spherical. The spherical material between ALEXA/EPIC was likewise hard to tell apart. I've got to agree with Rivai here. If the material is properly mastered the differences are not as big as one would expect...

ciao Adrian,
then your test was anamorphic and spherical right?
then Alexa was always in anamorphic to get the most from the sensor, right with anamorphic lenses right?
Instead Epic have ana shot in anamorphic 5kana with anamorphic lenses and then set 5kHd with spherical lenses right?

So in summary

Alexa 2880 x 2160 (4:3) anamorphic, sperical 2880 x 1620 , right?
Red Epic 1 shot 5kAna 3296x2700. and 2 shot 5kHd 4800x2700 right?

And you had not of anamorphic lenses?

you must set alexa in 16/9 then to 2880 x 1620 with spherical lenses.
as depth manual Alexa.
http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/workflow/working_with_arriraw.html and
http://www.arri.com/camera/digital_cameras/workflow/working_with_arriraw/recording.html

I gave you reason to anamorphic, but like I said I do not use and do not use anamorphic lenses I do not dislike. So I tell you that you will notice the difference and lot in 16/9 4kHD.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

Well look, ALEXA ARRIRAW is 2880 across. That's it. You don't gain any more resolution by using anamorphic lenses. If anything anamorphic glass will actually soften your final image. Anamorphics on ALEXA 4:3 are amazing because you do get full academy aperture. It's not really for added resolution as much as it gives you the full effect of anamorphic lenses. Anas on EPIC 5K ANA are very, very good. EPICs sensor is wider and the de-squeeze works out quite well.

But this is all about mastering for a 4K deliverable (3840x2160 for 16:9). Once ALEXA ARRIRAW material (whether it's Ana or Spherical) is properly conformed to a 4K output I've found it holds it's own against the 4K competition. This is coming from tests I've done myself. I can't post frame grabs right now but perhaps in a week or two I might get clearance. I'm not saying there's no difference between ALEXA, F65, EPIC, or F55 once all is graded and conformed to 4K but... I've found the differences to be much slighter than you'd think. Again, I've got to agree with Rivai, if all of these cameras were shown to you in a blind test I really don't think many could pick out which was which. This happened yesterday when I screened EPIC, F65, and EPIC all at 4K. Most there kept asking what was what. And the difference between ALEXA ARRIRAW 16:9 and EPIC 5K FF 3:1 felt very slight.

I'm sure if we were shooting resolution test charts to screen on the 4K projector the F65 and EPIC would completely edge out the ALEXA. But test charts make for pretty boring movies...

 

[luigivaltulini]

Well look, ALEXA ARRIRAW is 2880 across. That's it. You don't gain any more resolution by using anamorphic lenses. If anything anamorphic glass will actually soften your final image. Anamorphics on ALEXA 4:3 are amazing because you do get full academy aperture. It's not really for added resolution as much as it gives you the full effect of anamorphic lenses. Anas on EPIC 5K ANA are very, very good. EPICs sensor is wider and the de-squeeze works out quite well.

But this is all about mastering for a 4K deliverable (3840x2160 for 16:9). Once ALEXA ARRIRAW material (whether it's Ana or Spherical) is properly conformed to a 4K output I've found it holds it's own against the 4K competition. This is coming from tests I've done myself. I can't post frame grabs right now but perhaps in a week or two I might get clearance. I'm not saying there's no difference between ALEXA, F65, EPIC, or F55 once all is graded and conformed to 4K but... I've found the differences to be much slighter than you'd think. Again, I've got to agree with Rivai, if all of these cameras were shown to you in a blind test I really don't think many could pick out which was which. This happened yesterday when I screened EPIC, F65, and EPIC all at 4K. Most there kept asking what was what. And the difference between ALEXA ARRIRAW 16:9 and EPIC 5K FF 3:1 felt very slight.

I'm sure if we were shooting resolution test charts to screen on the 4K projector the F65 and EPIC would completely edge out the ALEXA. But test charts make for pretty boring movies...

for anamorphic images I give you right. In fact, the difference to be minimal.

We go back to the common spherical lenses.

Dear Asaf be severe not see the difference in resolution between lines 1620 and 2160 lines!!!! really not seeee?? But you see the difference between an SD signal 576 and an HD 1080? if you do not see it then I understand.
Well let's go back to the data lines are for 2160 UHDTV ie '3840 × 2160 ok? right.
With Alexa if we shoot in 16/9. we have 1620 rows. exactly 540 lines in less than 2160. With Epic 16/9 we shoot 2700 lines so theoretically we have 540 lines to be removed and not put as Alexa.

So I repeat the question, you notice the difference between an SD and an HD signal?
Or you have not done the proper testing and have only fired in anamorphic and as I have already 'repeated the difference is not seen.
Or do you have the projector out of focus?
Or the projector is not to be 4k but in 2k?
Or do you have vision problems?

Projector that you have used and which settings you used for Epic, Epic have transformed the movie into ProRess 4kUhtv? in full debayer? or half?
because you have not used directly Davinci resolve?


And to finish the film using the Epic for VFX for the reason and 'very simple. have much more resolution.

I'm not a fanboy of RED use the cameras as a tool for work, I also like Arri and I find it surprising , and sometimes when you do not have the time to use the workflow faster.

 

[RivaiC]

It's simple. Many people do test but since they know what source it's coming from, they are trying the best (based on what is told before hand) and judge, come out with conclusion. But things will be different when you are presented a material where you totally blind, you dont have any information what you are looking at. Many failed, in fact i havent seen anyone succeed it. Many dont even dare to guess it. So Luigi, i suggest you to take up the blind test in a group. Mix it up with Sony and Canon, it will be fun, trust me, use same lens, same exposure, same ISO. The wipe test that you did, we have done it. Yes we see the difference But i want to be able to guess it not knowing what we are looking at. The most common reaction is when the picture "feels" good, that's when people react the most. It mostly because of color being the biggest contributing factor of picture. It's not scientific, it's physiological. If just feel good, despite the fact sometimes the resolution is not so great but you like it, it's gorgeous, it's sweet looking. I think this is what we should aim for.

Im sure everybody will be a able to tell a difference when you are told or side by side comparison. Then we will hear..."ah yes".

So i prefer to come back to this discussion when the test is done at zero - blind. Then we will discuss it again or until Dragon arrives. It will be another comparison stage. This conversation will be great if we actually meet face to face and showing each other material, that's the key. But i think this is the limit of forum.

R

 

[Michael Dalton]

Responding to the market. Red should have done this a while back when many were asking for a ProRes proxy module or similar. Missed opportunity to get many more people into the ecosystem, now there are cheaper, easier options.

I used to be one who wanted this, but after using the 4k RAW workflow and colour grading in Resolve, there is no way in hell you'll get me back into a liner colour space. I think red just cringes at the thought of people NOT using REDCODE.

So Terrence Malick is demented? And what about Joss Whedon? He used the Alexa on one movie and then the Epic on the next, so does that mean he was briefly demented... but cured?

''

In a way yes, but I guess they are directors and not producers thinking long term. The future is 4k and up, not HD and SD. Price for 4k is not cost prohibitive now. I wonder if Danny Boyle is thinking he was crazy for shooting 28 days later on such a poor format? As SD disappears, so does his work. So my question as a producer is, how can it be anything but crazy not to shoot content at 4k these days, especially features and big budget TV. Does aesthetic prevail over long term survival of work?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

In a way yes, but I guess they are directors and not producers thinking long term. The future is 4k and up, not HD and SD. Price for 4k is not cost prohibitive now. I wonder if Danny Boyle is thinking he was crazy for shooting 28 days later on such a poor format? As SD disappears, so does his work. So my question as a producer is, how can it be anything but crazy not to shoot content at 4k these days, especially features and big budget TV. Does aesthetic prevail over long term survival of work?

The popularity -- and thus "survivability" -- of old movies over time is not based on how much resolution the image contains, it's based on how much people will continue to be entertained by them. Many 35mm movies, particularly from the far past, won't measure detail out to 4K, yet we still watch them if they are entertaining. Take a look at "Cabaret" for example -- fog filters, smoke, zoom lenses... it's not a sharp movie. "28 Days Later" has always looked low-res, even when it was first released, and it will always look low-res. It won't be "thrown out" because of its resolution. If you are making art, of course aesthetics should drive decision making! You're telling stories, not selling TV sets. Honestly, do you think 50 years from now, Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" will "survive" and be watched just because it was shot on the Epic, but "The Avengers" won't be because it was shot on the Alexa?

 

[Michael Dalton]

The popularity -- and thus "survivability" -- of old movies over time is not based on how much resolution the image contains, it's based on how much people will continue to be entertained by them. Many 35mm movies, particularly from the far past, won't measure detail out to 4K, yet we still watch them if they are entertaining. Take a look at "Cabaret" for example -- fog filters, smoke, zoom lenses... it's not a sharp movie. "28 Days Later" has always looked low-res, even when it was first released, and it will always look low-res. It won't be "thrown out" because of its resolution. If you are making art, of course aesthetics should drive decision making! You're telling stories, not selling TV sets. Honestly, do you think 50 years from now, Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" will "survive" and be watched just because it was shot on the Epic, but "The Avengers" won't be because it was shot on the Alexa?

It's a given that a film needs to be good to survive, and shooting in 4k does not guarantee longevity. However, no I don't think a movie like 28 days later will survive purely because of it's format. It looks terrible http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IE_C5vSv8qg (watch it in 1080p) HD stations will be less enthusiastic to show them, 4k networks will certainly by-pass it, and younger generations will be less likely to embrace them. By definition of the 4k format stipulates no up-rezing can take place. We'll see if that holds true. Some old films that were shot on film can of course be re-mastered in 4k, they may not have the sharpness, but technically they will be 4k scans. 2k or 2.8k is the equivalent of 16mm, to me that sounds limiting.

My point is that purely from a producers stand point, it does not make sense to me long term to shoot at a lower resolution when 4k options are there. We are at a change in formats that feel vaguely of the SD-HD change and I'm surprised that when weighing options, that is not greater then subtle aesthetics of a camera.

Honestly, do you think 50 years from now, Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" will "survive" and be watched just because it was shot on the Epic, but "The Avengers" won't be because it was shot on the Alexa?

Who knows, my argument is a numbers game, not a movie-by-movie comparison. In 15-20 years I'll be surprised if HD makes up 50% of the content on TV, or what ever web-based version we have., which means a huge chunk of the content will not survive. Were seeing this today, a lot of the older great SD tv shows are not being carried on HD channels because they fail to meet the standards technically. If they did have HD version, it's a given that they would survive till the next round regardless if their good or not. It's a given that resolution will continue to increase, it will be interesting to see if people taste for nostalgia will super seed that.

Can the Avengers make more money long term in 4k or 2k? I'd bet on 4k, and not 2k.

 

[C.H.Haskell]

Think again if you believe Danny Boyle's older SD works will disappear....I 2nd David Mullen.

 

[Michael Dalton]

Think again if you believe Danny Boyle's older SD works will disappear....I 2nd David Mullen.

no, they'll become some obscure cult film you can download and trade with your film friends. But it's future as a money making venture in UHD and HD world catering to the masses, NO it has no future! Read the reviews on the "BLUE RAY" version, there was no point in getting an HD version, and I'm sure the up-rezed TV version in not selling well to networks either. It's a great film, but as resolution on TVs and computers increases, the desire for the masses to watch a 720x480 picture will be reduced to ipod and small screens. You kill the majority of your market.

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

well when speaking about removing raw option for cheaper camera, it sound strange for me..
AFAIK getting raw footage directly from the sensor to recording makes a cheaper design, and also smaller, lighter, less power consuming, less heat generating.. etc..
coz you simplify your onboard chips for encoding to a different format other than the sensor's native raw..
so how come that alexa hd is taking apart the raw ability for a cheaper design? its the other way around. I think arri should rethink their designs for cheaper cameras that doesn't go around itself in the design.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

no, they'll become some obscure cult film you can download and trade with your film friends. But it's future as a money making venture in UHD and HD world catering to the masses, NO it has no future! Read the reviews on the "BLUE RAY" version, there was no point in getting an HD version, and I'm sure the up-rezed TV version in not selling well to networks either. It's a great film, but as resolution on TVs and computers increases, the desire for the masses to watch a 720x480 picture will be reduced to ipod and small screens. You kill the majority of your market.

Realistically though 28 Days Later could never have been produced on 35mm for budgetry issues. Though aesthetics would have played into it and Danny Boyle would have liked how it looked or he wouldn't have made the film that way, without utilising SD digital cameras that film never would have gotten off the ground, so would never have been seen anyway. So I don't think it is the best example of a poor choice in format.

 

[Petr Dvorak]

LOL today you are forced to watch most of the TV, cable, net channels in very low bitrate with very high compression full of artifacts and macroblocking, details are washed away. Quality is truly horrible.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

So if there is no appreciable difference between high-end cameras, then the EPIC has to be the go-to camera, as it offers the best compromises between frame rate, resolution, DR, size and cost.

Nobody here dislikes the Alexa's image. Nobody. It's one of the nicest TV cameras ever made. But I am disappointed that one would rather spend more or equal money on a bigger camera with a lower pixel count. I'm equally disappointed that anyone in their right minds would choose a DSLR over a RED (unless you really had no money).

My point is that purely from a producers stand point, it does not make sense to me long term to shoot at a lower resolution when 4k options are there.

You are absolutely right. One does not have to be a Nobel Prize-winning economist to see this. There are quite a few TV shows that were shot on film but could have been shot on video. Perhaps I'm just being eccentric, but I'm so glad that Twin Peaks and Seinfeld were shot on 35mm.

Any given film might be shown on an IMAX screen (something that home video can't easily compete with). Everyone will be glad that the production chose 4K. At that size, I don't think that even 35mm can hold a sharp image (sadly).

Alexa makes no sense. If you can afford an Alexa then you can afford an EPIC (or two). I just can't see why you'd choose Arri over RED when you have a flexible budget.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

Nobody here dislikes the Alexa's image.

I just can't see why you'd choose Arri over RED when you have a flexible budget.

(As a Red owner I don't agree with the statement I'm about to make - I love the image) But some DOPs just don't like how Red looks. Some DOPs just don't think it looks as good as film, or Alexa. A lot of DOPs out there think the Alexa is the absolute cream of cameras, both in image and usability, and these DOPs would prefer the image they can get from an Alexa over the image from a Red One, Epic or Scarlet regardless of resolution. And as long as great films are shot in HD, 2K, 16mm or even VHS, these films will continue to be seen and enjoyed, even if they weren't shot 4K. A side note, what about if 8K becomes a standard in the future, what happens to everything shot on Epic?

I think 4K will happen, but I just don't think it is as doom and gloom for anything sub-4K as some people say. My Scarlet can't even deliver proper 4K after debayer.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

But it's future as a money making venture in UHD and HD world catering to the masses, NO it has no future!

That's good. It looks as money making venture catering to the masses is not amongst Danny Boyle's top priorities anyway.

Btw not sure why would anyone have to experience zombies in UHD, there are enough in Super Ultra Real Definition populating the streets already.

 

[António Fagundes]

The popularity -- and thus "survivability" -- of old movies over time is not based on how much resolution the image contains, it's based on how much people will continue to be entertained by them. Many 35mm movies, particularly from the far past, won't measure detail out to 4K, yet we still watch them if they are entertaining. Take a look at "Cabaret" for example -- fog filters, smoke, zoom lenses... it's not a sharp movie. "28 Days Later" has always looked low-res, even when it was first released, and it will always look low-res. It won't be "thrown out" because of its resolution. If you are making art, of course aesthetics should drive decision making! You're telling stories, not selling TV sets. Honestly, do you think 50 years from now, Joss Whedon's "Much Ado About Nothing" will "survive" and be watched just because it was shot on the Epic, but "The Avengers" won't be because it was shot on the Alexa?

No one better than David to put some common sense into these fanboy discussions!