Alexa HD !!

[Ruairi Robinson]

Price for 4k is not cost prohibitive now.

Yep, still is, if you are doing VFX.

Even movies like Oblivion are finishing 2k (even if it was shot 4k) because vfx cost too much at 4k. Just the way it is!

R.

 

[Michael Dalton]

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

Hardly a fanboy discussion and I love Arri. As much as I respect David and his comments, I disagree with him because I see filmmaking as more as a business then art. If we look at purely from the art side, then I agree with him. There are many people here who make a living from their pictures and can speak from experience. I'm one of the few producer/directors here (who's full-time job is producing), and what I have seen happen to all my SD TV shows makes me a firm believer in what I'm saying. I have a 10 part wildlife series, 4 episodes in SD, and 6 in HD. I have not made a single sale of the SD shows in 3 years. All the new sales have dropped the SD episode when buying the series despite the fact they are the best episodes. People are starting to grip over 720p material saying they only take material originated in 1080p. I have over 50 TV documentary films that I have made, almost half of which are in 720p or under, and I cringe to think of their future.

Yep, still is, if you are doing VFX.
Even movies like Oblivion are finishing 2k (even if it was shot 4k) because vfx cost too much at 4k. Just the way it is!
R.

I agree with you, but I think it is also a reluctance on the VFX industry to streamline a 4k pipeline. I was in VFX during the jump to HD, and it was not that painful, but everyone feared it. You render test proxy's, so most of your work would be in 2k. I can't accept that Flame/Nuke can't handle 4k today at a decent speeds. I was working a lot in 2k 10 years ago. Technology must be better today.

 

[Brian Merlen]

Like the insight there! I am very interested in wildlife shooting myself, would love to find a way to break in to doing that some day. It seems very interesting when looking at the final product, I really like the genre

Hardly a fanboy discussion and I love Arri. As much as I respect David and his comments, I disagree with him. There are many people here who make a living from their pictures and can speak from experience. I'm one of the few producer/directors here (who's full-time job is producing), and what I have seen happen to all my SD TV shows makes me a firm believer in what I'm saying. I have a 10 part wildlife series, 4 episodes in SD, and 6 in HD. I have not made a single sale of the SD shows in 3 years. All the new sales have dropped the SD version when buying the series despite the fact they are the best episodes. People are starting to grip over 720p material saying they only take material originated in 1080p. I have over 50 TV documentary films that I have made, almost half of which are in 720p or under, and I cringe to think of their future.



I agree with you, but I think it is also a reluctance on the VFX industry to streamline a 4k pipeline. I was in VFX during the jump to HD, and it was not that painful, but everyone feared it. You render test proxy's, so most of your work would be in 2k. I can't accept that Flame/Nuke can't handle 4k today at a decent speeds. I was working a lot in 2k 10 years ago. Technology must be better today.

 

[Mark Toia]

(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.

Unfortunately, Most DP's don't get to grade from the RAW files, and get stuck with DPX conversions from some generic onset LUT, or a color setting set by some kid transcoding in the back room of a post house. Most DP's don't even attend grades to make it worse...
Most DP's don't understand what they can really get from a 5k RAW format and a good colourist, but seem to think a colour baked HD PRORES file is better because they are told so.

Most DP's choose Arri over RED because they feel it's easier to get a better look out of there HD PRO RES files than what they get from 5K RAW.
Most DP's Like Arri Ergonomics and the easy menu system.
Most DP's want simplicity not complexity.
So at the end of the day, Most DP's are correct to in choosing an ARRI HD camera over a RED 5k Camera.... and who would blame them.

I find the RED EPIC very easy to use and post, and so does my 16 year old son... but most people are not that technology savvy, so they stick to basic tools. it's human nature and that's what ARRI realised nice and early, and good on them for thinking so logically.

Content wins at the end of the day... not Clarity or resolution.

 

[Bill Anderson]

The business model and performance of a few made for "TV wildlife shows" is not a very good indication of how things should,
or will proceed in the film industry; it's certainly not a very good point of departure when forecasting about the likes of 28 Days Later.

When it comes to preserving and displaying movies for future generations, the need for fidelity does not only apply to highly detailed imagery;
the aesthetic of 28 Days Later is as valid as any other movie's, and should be treated as such.

It's a mistake to suspect every lo fi movie as aspiring to be something else, as if that something else is intrinsically superior.
Art might be comprised of pixels, but its worth is never measured by the number of them.

 

[Brian Merlen]

I think the concern over content created not at the 4k standard is justified, but its really up to the projects and producers to determine, not so much a choice that is in my control unless its my personal project. You don't need to output a 4k cat commercial if its not going to still be ran by the time 4k distribution is in place. Also currently, there is no distribution in place and no one really knows what provider will win out in the HD to 4k distribution mass acceptance battle. With so many unknowns its hard to really analyze this. Also the big budget things will probably realize the need for 4k, but even for them to start stressing now about the standard change, before its even got a valid distribution path is sort of premature. I am sure they will make algorithms to uprez and even if it looks terrible people will still have their projects converted to try and monetize further. But all of this debate has little to do with the Alexa HD

The Alexa HD for better or worse is a good camera for everything Toia says. People don't all get raw, and not everyone is a colorist or tech savvy. Old fashion film guys already trust that brand, and for better or worse all us Red owners have to myth bust all the bad rumors about Red. Thats just the way it goes.

DSMC is very stable, and hopefully Dragon will be even more so. This will help get rid of rumors that work against Red. Personally I would rather get a Dragon then an Alexa HD, but had the Alexa HD been much cheaper I would certainly consider it based on the other Alexa success in the market place

 

[Mitch Gross]

Hey everyone, it's li'l ole me -- that guy in the video. This is REDuser so I'm certainly not going to campaign o anything. This thread has been an interesting read and I encourage it to continue as it discusses all our futures. I have my own thoughts but again I don't want to be rude as this is a RED forum, although I wouldn't be particularly "anti RED." But if anyone has any questions or comments about the ALEXA HD I'm happy to answer them privately.

And thanks for the David Cross comparison. Not the first time I've heard it, but I'm much taller.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I think it is a valid topic of discussion, whether one should capture in 4K or higher to protect of long-term investment, the ability to resell the project. I just think it's a bit more complex than simply always choosing to shoot at the highest resolution possible for future high-resolution release formats and displays. There is that whole "art" aspect that some people want to undervalue as a determinant.

And as for "28 Days Later", considering the low cost of production and the decent box office and home video sales of the movie, you can hardly claim that it was a poor financial investment, everything that movie earns now is gravy. And I don't think that shooting the movie in low-quality consumer video gear was the only way that movie could have gotten made for that budget, there is a long history of low-budget horror movies shot in Super-16 and 35mm, movies with budgets even lower than "28 Days Later" -- the choice of format was clearly an artistic one, and to some degree, a logistical one, but it was possible to shoot on better equipment. But I don't think a producer would last long working for him if he told Boyle that he could only shoot on the highest resolution equipment possible no matter what the story demanded, or what Boyle's personal aesthetic was telling him... just because he could make some extra bucks in the future selling the movie to some 4K distribution network. Boyle wouldn't be the successful director he is today if he thought only in such naked business terms.

What I don't get is this hostility towards ARRI making an HD camera when so many other companies make HD cameras too... everyone is assuming that the Alexa HD is only for cinema features or something, as if there is no current market demand for HD cameras for non-cinema use that perhaps ARRI is more looking at providing a camera for. I question the cost of the camera (we'll have to wait and see if it turns out to be a profitable idea for ARRI) but I don't question that there is a market for HD cameras out there, and that some HD productions would like to get the Alexa look.

You can say that some old 1960's 35mm movie can always release a 4K version for future 4K markets even if the image quality isn't really 4K... but how is that any different than uprezzing a 2K movie? You're just repackaging something under 4K in resolution in a 4K format. Some things will look better than others, and for some titles, it won't matter much because of the popularity of the movie. If you're a big fan of "The Sting" or "Jaws" or "Cool Hand Luke" you may want to see them in 4K someday but that doesn't mean that they have 4K resolution, you just want to see them as best as they can be shown.

 

[Michael Dalton]

I think it is a valid topic of discussion, whether one should capture in 4K or higher to protect of long-term investment, the ability to resell the project. I just think it's a bit more complex than simply always choosing to shoot at the highest resolution possible for future high-resolution release formats and displays. There is that whole "art" aspect that some people want to undervalue as a determinant.

And as for "28 Days Later", considering the low cost of production and the decent box office and home video sales of the movie, you can hardly claim that it was a poor financial investment, everything that movie earns now is gravy. And I don't think that shooting the movie in low-quality consumer video gear was the only way that movie could have gotten made for that budget, there is a long history of low-budget horror movies shot in Super-16 and 35mm, movies with budgets even lower than "28 Days Later" -- the choice of format was clearly an artistic one, and to some degree, a logistical one, but it was possible to shoot on better equipment. But I don't think a producer would last long working for him if he told Boyle that he could only shoot on the highest resolution equipment possible no matter what the story demanded, or what Boyle's personal aesthetic was telling him... just because he could make some extra bucks in the future selling the movie to some 4K distribution network. Boyle wouldn't be the successful director he is today if he thought only in such naked business terms.

What I don't get is this hostility towards ARRI making an HD camera when so many other companies make HD cameras too... everyone is assuming that the Alexa HD is only for cinema features or something, as if there is no current market demand for HD cameras for non-cinema use that perhaps ARRI is more looking at providing a camera for. I question the cost of the camera (we'll have to wait and see if it turns out to be a profitable idea for ARRI) but I don't question that there is a market for HD cameras out there, and that some HD productions would like get the Alexa look.

You can say that some old 1960's 35mm movie can always release a 4K version for future 4K markets even if the image quality isn't really 4K... but how is that any different than uprezzing a 2K movie? You're just repackaging something under 4K in resolution in a 4K format. Some things will look better than others, and for some titles, it won't matter much because of the popularity of the movie. If you're a big fan of "The Sting" or "Jaws" or "Cool Hand Luke" you may want to see them in 4K someday but that doesn't mean that they have 4K resolution, you just want to see them as best as they can be shown.

Some very valid points. I can't say I'm hostile towards Arri, I feel like Jim, it's a company that inspired me to make films. I'm only surprised when Red and BM are doing 4k for less. True there are a lot non-cinema uses for cameras, but like you the price point sees very high to me. Time will tell.

The business model and performance of a few made for "TV wildlife shows" is not a very good indication of how things should,
or will proceed in the film industry; it's certainly not a very good point of departure when forecasting about the likes of 28 Days Later.

When it comes to preserving and displaying movies for future generations, the need for fidelity does not only apply to highly detailed imagery;
the aesthetic of 28 Days Later is as valid as any other movie's, and should be treated as such.
.

Bill it's enough to make me wonder though, and passionately debate it here. I must agree with you, one series is not an indication. However speaking with my distributor last month who is a major player in the factual world told me her SD catalogue does not sell at ALL anymore. Were talking 5000hrs worth. Some of the shows are only a few year old too. My shows were 6 years old that don't sell anymore.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

Hi David, you are correct actually, I think I was mistaken with my original budget comment on 28 Days Later - I think logistics were in fact more the issue, for the such limited time they had the streets of London closed I think digital allowed for such better coverage than film would have.

 

[Rudi Herbert]

it is all relative,

At the end of the day, I don't think the "aesthetic" of low grade SD cameras has ever been a consideration when choosing a tool purely for its look. If you are forced to shoot between film and digital in terms of budget, then yes, digital makes a lot of sense given that film was always expensive in its requirements, even if it wasn't the exorbitant proposition a lot of people who never shot film seem to think it was. BUT, when it comes to all those early digital formats, shooting those Canon XL1 cameras was not much different that shooting, say, DigiBeta, save for the much better resolution and look of the latter one. Budget wise, digibeta was not that far from mini DV, and neither were the cameras much bigger size wise. Maneuverability wise, there are very few things you could do on a mini DV camera that you couldn't also do on a digibeta really. I'm sure Danny Boyle could have afforded it. I tried watching 28 days, quite 10 minutes into it, it looked like crap. I wasn't being a perfectionist or a resolution nut, but whenever the shooting medium makes itself so noticeable as to take me out of the story, then f...k it really. Alexa doesn't bother me in theaters, it looks fine on a big screen, not as sharp as Epic but in no way does it detract from my getting into the story and following it, and of course, I'm sure it will look even better uprezzed to 4K on TV. But there is, and always has bee, a threshold where a certain quality is acceptable and one notch below that is not, and if you go through the effort of putting a real crew together, actors, grip, the whole enchilada, even if a smaller crew than a regular production, and go through all the painful motions of shooting a film good and proper, then shouldn't you choose a format that meets a certain minimum quality? There have always been lower end options that are good enough, HD and 2K are still good enough, 16 mm was still good enough during the film era, but I dare say mini DV was not during the time 28 days was shot, and that to me is a mistake or a lack of hindsight, even an inadvertent disrespect to one's work and that of others', regardless of all the artistic choices being waved about to justify the use of tools below that minimal requirement threshold...

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Regarding Danny Boyle's filmmaking decisions and N-th online debate on 28 Days Later:

The decision to film on DV (using Canon XL1 cameras) was both an aesthetic and a logistic choice. Aesthetically, Danny Boyle felt that the harshness of the DV imagery suited the post-apocalyptic urban landscape and the grittiness of the film in general. In the production notes, Boyle says "the general idea was to try and shoot as though we were survivors too." Logistically, producer Andrew Macdonald claims that shooting with standard cameras, especially some exterior scenes, would've been impossible. As MacDonald points out in the production notes, "The police and the local authorities were quite happy to assist us because we could set up scenes so quickly. We could literally be ready to shoot with a six-camera set-up within minutes - something we would not realistically have been able to do if shooting under the restrictions of 35mm which takes a good deal more time to set up a single shot."

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/trivia

In addition, XL1 is noticably lighter and more practical and faster to work with than any Digibeta camera.
I suggest shooting with both for a whole day handheld if that statement seems questionable.


Back to N-th online pixel count drama.

 

[RivaiC]

Unfortunately, Most DP's don't get to grade from the RAW files, and get stuck with DPX conversions from some generic onset LUT.....
.

Oh Mark, how true ! Last week we got a call from post house asking the convert R3D to Uncompressed 10bit quicktime red gamma 3 ! WTF ?!?!? Why ?? Because the post house cannot open the R3D so the producer said. And we were completely speechless...i REALLY mean completely silence on a phone, the producer thought that she had a connection problem.

I dont understand how post house run these days. They can even download davinci lite for god sake. I am so disturb when i think about this. The workflow is just so wrong. R3D is nothing difficult to work with.

R

 

[jake blackstone]

Oh Mark, how true ! Last week we got a call from post house asking the convert R3D to Uncompressed 10bit quicktime red gamma 3 ! WTF ?!?!? Why ?? Because the post house cannot open the R3D so the producer said. And we were completely speechless...i REALLY mean completely silence on a phone, the producer thought that she had a connection problem.

I dont understand how post house run these days. They can even download davinci lite for god sake. I am so disturb when i think about this. The workflow is just so wrong. R3D is nothing difficult to work with.

R

No. What's wrong with the producers willing to work with such post houses? There are now plenty of post houses, which are well versed in working with R3D files without transcoding first. There is nothing wrong with grading from properly trascoded DPX, but there is ZERO reason to grade from DPX files transcoded on set using generic LUT, none. What's a generic LUT anyway?

 

[Nick Morrison]

Oh Mark, how true ! Last week we got a call from post house asking the convert R3D to Uncompressed 10bit quicktime red gamma 3 ! WTF ?!?!? Why ?? Because the post house cannot open the R3D so the producer said. And we were completely speechless...i REALLY mean completely silence on a phone, the producer thought that she had a connection problem.

I dont understand how post house run these days. They can even download davinci lite for god sake. I am so disturb when i think about this. The workflow is just so wrong. R3D is nothing difficult to work with.

R

I work on broadcast TV in NYC, and NOT A SINGLE client or vendor I know wants to work from R3Ds. Why should they? Broadcast is built around QUICKTIMES, not R3Ds. Whether they are on AVID or FINAL CUT, our clients (and their vendors) want and expect to receive quicktimes. We give them the R3D's as well as a backup, in case they'd like todo a proper grade/finish at the end, but broadcast is a such a fast turn-around business that rarely happens. Instead, our graded "one light" quicktimes usually become the shoot "masters" our clients edit from.

When we are hired to produce a shoot, and we bring our REDS, all our clients ever want to recieve at the end of the day is a drive with awesome looking quicktimes. Whether the camera is a RED, an ALEXA, a PHANTOM, they don't care...they just want materials they can work with right away. Only the very savvy clients ask for the R3D's, and expect to grade from them later.

In fact, because our clients are so inexperienced with RED workflow, I would never dream of giving them the R3D's alone. To me, that would be close to professional suicide. Because the R3D's are "RAW", and can be made to look like anything, the concept of trusting my cleints to "grade" our footage makes me tremble. Because in effect that means some 23 year old assistant editor who's never opened RCX before is going to "convert" the footage and...most likely...make it look terrible. Do you know how many times I've had editors ask me, "why does red footage look so terrible sometimes?", and of course it's because some idiot ingested the RAW files into the avid w/out applying a LUT or a grade and it looks like flat, terrible Avid compressed crud.

So, we always deliver graded quicktimes. We work hard to make them look AWESOME, our clients are happy, and they love and trust our REDS. But what they are loving are the graded quicktimes we give them, not the R3Ds...which they almost never even see, or open up.

 

[Mark Toia]

In fact, because our clients are so inexperienced with RED workflow, I would never dream of giving them the R3D's alone. To me, that would be close to professional suicide. Because the R3D's are "RAW", and can be made to look like anything, the concept of trusting my cleints to "grade" our footage makes me tremble

We do exactly the same.
We grade everything perfectly, and send all the rushes out as final graded 4k or 2K PRORES.
We keep the RED files for us, and we then charge out for Stills from those files.
Those R3D's just keep on giving

 

[jake blackstone]

Please make up your mind. If you're talking about QT rushes, great! Make them look the best you can. Your clients can use those rushes for editing and they will be happy with the look of your work.
When time comes to grade, they can go back to R3Ds and grade from them. End of story. Don't confuse rushes and final grade, please.
And stop bashing post houses, please. There are MANY very competent places, who would be very happy to grade from R3Ds for best results.

 

[RivaiC]

I work on broadcast TV in NYC, and NOT A SINGLE client or vendor I know wants to work from R3Ds. Why should they? Broadcast is built around QUICKTIMES, not R3Ds. Whether they are on AVID or FINAL CUT, our clients (and their vendors) want and expect to receive quicktimes. We give them the R3D's as well as a backup, in case they'd like todo a proper grade/finish at the end, but broadcast is a such a fast turn-around business that rarely happens. Instead, our graded "one light" quicktimes usually become the shoot "masters" our clients edit from.

When we are hired to produce a shoot, and we bring our REDS, all our clients ever want to recieve at the end of the day is a drive with awesome looking quicktimes. Whether the camera is a RED, an ALEXA, a PHANTOM, they don't care...they just want materials they can work with right away. Only the very savvy clients ask for the R3D's, and expect to grade from them later.

In fact, because our clients are so inexperienced with RED workflow, I would never dream of giving them the R3D's alone. To me, that would be close to professional suicide. Because the R3D's are "RAW", and can be made to look like anything, the concept of trusting my cleints to "grade" our footage makes me tremble. Because in effect that means some 23 year old assistant editor who's never opened RCX before is going to "convert" the footage and...most likely...make it look terrible. Do you know how many times I've had editors ask me, "why does red footage look so terrible sometimes?", and of course it's because some idiot ingested the RAW files into the avid w/out applying a LUT or a grade and it looks like flat, terrible Avid compressed crud.

So, we always deliver graded quicktimes. We work hard to make them look AWESOME, our clients are happy, and they love and trust our REDS. But what they are loving are the graded quicktimes we give them, not the R3Ds...which they almost never even see, or open up.

The problem is Nick & Jake. This is an expensive TV commercial. It's not supposed to be a fast turn around job. You have to make it looks great. Despite the fact the producer knows that it's going out to big screen too in theatre. She asked for HD version transcoded files in Quicktime 1080P Uncompressed 10bit 422 (as requested from post house) instead of 2K DPX. Is there any DI system that cant accept R3D nowadays ? If you have the resource and budget to do proper grading why should you use Quicktime Uncompressed 10bit 422 ? They are not making it look great from raw then transcode. Instead they start everything in grading from default setting in camera uncompressed 10bit 422.

The producer couldnt answer this question and keep on saying the post house couldnt access R3D (yes the file is completely fine, no corrupt). If you think this is correct, then i have nothing to say. Yes i bashed this post house, it's nonsense.

R

 

[Ivan Kovax]

We keep the RED files for us, and we then charge out for Stills from those files.
Those R3D's just keep on giving

THis is the second revenue generating idea you have given me within a week.

Score.

 

[Marc Wielage]

In fact, because our clients are so inexperienced with RED workflow, I would never dream of giving them the R3D's alone. To me, that would be close to professional suicide. Because the R3D's are "RAW", and can be made to look like anything, the concept of trusting my cleints to "grade" our footage makes me tremble. Because in effect that means some 23 year old assistant editor who's never opened RCX before is going to "convert" the footage and...most likely...make it look terrible.

I assume you've never shot film before. Because that's also exactly the way film looks: you can make it look like anything, depending on the color-correction used in grading. Experienced colorists know what a "down the middle" look is like, and their main job is/was to protect the DP's work to preserve their intentions.

This shows the value of a) setting a specific look on dailies so that the Quicktime (or Avid DNxHD) files look reasonable, and b) being present at the color-timing session so that you get the look you want in the final. And this is also assuming that your on-set monitor is calibrated, the editor's monitor is calibrated, and the final color correction monitor is calibrated -- and all three tell you the truth about the image.