Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Peter Moretti]

By whom?

We feature an extended range of 13.5 stops.

HDR is not that.

Do we need to keep going on about this?...Really?

Since when did "HDR" become a four letter word?

I was told at the DGA event that the Alexa takes double samples the image with different gain structures. By doing so, the camera is able to generate 16 useable bits of color info for ArriRaw.

And that sounds very much like HDR to me.

 

[Dwight Tudor]

HDR is traditionally created by 2+ frames taken in very quick sequential order at different exposures (shutter/aperature/etc) Alexa does it with different gain paths simultaneously, which is technically different than the current definition of HDR.

Red might decide to change that definition when they tell us how they plan on doing their HDR mode. I wonder if it'll be for still AND motion modes or just for the stills mode, I can't wait to hear about it!

 

[Michael Bravin]

Since when did "HDR" become a four letter word?

I was told at the DGA event that the Alexa takes double samples the image with different gain structures. By doing so, the camera is able to generate 16 useable bits of color info for ArriRaw.

And that sounds very much like HDR to me.

Actually its a 3 letter acronym and it refers to multiple exposures being merged into a single photograph.

This is not how ARRI DGA (Dual Gain Architecture) works at all.
The ALEV III sensor design provides 32 pairs of outputs. Each channel is divided into a high gain path (H)
and a low gain path (L), resulting in 64 channels arriving at the 14 bit A/D converters. In the final images
the lowlights are reconstructed from the high gain path and the highlights are reconstructed from the low
gain path for an image containing meaningful information in all 16 bits.

But...if you wish to call it HDR I'll try to keep silent from now on :closedeyes:

 

[Peter Moretti]

Actually its a 3 letter acronym and it refers to multiple exposures being merged into a single photograph.

This is not how ARRI DGA (Dual Gain Architecture) works at all.
The ALEV III sensor design provides 32 pairs of outputs. Each channel is divided into a high gain path (H)
and a low gain path (L), resulting in 64 channels arriving at the 14 bit A/D converters. In the final images
the lowlights are reconstructed from the high gain path and the highlights are reconstructed from the low
gain path for an image containing meaningful information in all 16 bits.

But...if you wish to call it HDR I'll try to keep silent from now on :closedeyes:

Michael, I've said a lot of good things about the Alexa and have been by and large defending it. In the very post you questioned me about, I was justifying Arri's claim of 13.5 stops.

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you over how the term "HDR" should/would/could apply to motion cameras.

But your description of DGA is how I described Alexa working. So it's not like I was mischaracterizing what the camera is actually doing. Or saying it didn't do it very well. You just seem to have an issue with it being called "HDR."

Fine, the Red guys don't like latitude being used loosely for dynamic range, even when it's perfectly clear what's meant. And you don't like HDR being used for what the Alexa does, even though adding gain is a way to change exposure.

Those are two fights that just don't mean that much to me.

 

[Alex Kornreich]

James

This is hardly an opinion, this is a fact that nearly ALL theatrical movies produced in the world top out at 2K as well as DI, and television at 1080P.

If "future proofing" were an industry concern why aren't all films shot in 65mm Anamorphic with 8K DI?, seriously?

This is a great point.

Since there are very few people sticking up for Arri, let me say this: that Alexa is a damn sexy camera. It doesn't look like a suitcase nuke (Red One), or a black plastic tissue box with a PL mount (Epic). Furthermore, I could date a girl named Alexa, but Scarlet reminds me too much of poor ol' Hester Prynne and her badge of shame. Epic is a bit overwhelming for such a tiny little box (or is there some evil genius in the irony?).

You guys are always talking about picture quality, codecs, workflow, whatever. What's really important is whether you can take your camera home to your parents and they'll approve. Or to set and the crew thinks you're the man. Let's get our priorities straight here.

I'd buy an Alexa in a second...if only i could afford it. So I guess I'll have to settle for an Epic with a side of FF4 and MB20

 

[Deanan]

even though adding gain is a way to change exposure.

Analog gain on a sensor changes how the digital range is aligned to analog signal. The exposure doesn't technically change, just how the range is aligned to the signal.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Deanan, if you apply how the term "exposure" is used in the still and film camera world then, yes. But exposure is used much more loosely in the video world. A lot times "exposure" is changed by adjusting gain.

 

[Michael Brennan]

Finally, for those of you misquoting the ALEXA as a $130K plus Camera. WRONG: A complete Package is around $77K... the packages priced over $100K included TWO beautiful ARRI Zooms in that price.

This is either a blunder or a marketing strategy from Arri, as I reckon that most think the $130k is just for the full sensor 4:3 and optical viewfinder.....



Mike Brennan

 

[David Rasberry]

Deanan, if you apply how the term "exposure" is used in the still and film camera world then, yes. But exposure is used much more loosely in the video world. A lot times "exposure" is changed by adjusting gain.

Same principles still apply. Gain boosts noise along with signal and reduces dynamic range. However they get to it, all digital cameras have a practical exposure range where one trades off highlight protection against noise in the shadows.

 

[James Brundige]

James

This is hardly an opinion, this is a fact that nearly ALL theatrical movies produced in the world top out at 2K as well as DI, and television at 1080P.

We chose to build ALEXA as a tool to service this market with excellent image quality, color fidelity and simple straightforward workflow that fits neatly into the existing workflows for film and television.

Where is the contention?

I don't think we have ever claimed anything else.

If "future proofing" were an industry concern why aren't all films shot in 65mm Anamorphic with 8K DI?, seriously?

I think the opinion in contention is that 4K is the format of the near future, and while I COMPLETELY respect the point of view, I disagree that this is a given.

The discussion can be civil, rational and instructive...can it not?

I'm not sure where the civil comment comes from. The part of my post you did not quote said that Arri had nailed the Episodic tv market with a great 1080 camera, and that Arri would probably be able to respond when the theatrical workflow went to 4K.

So when is that going to happen? Who knows? I heard that Sony just sold about 16,000 of the new 4K projectors. Clearly Red is betting in that direction.

As far as future proofing, your observation about 65 mm is clearly sarcastic, since it makes the whole production chain absurdly expensive. One of the main reasons I bought a Red was having just thrown away 25 years of SD material, some of which (literally) almost killed me. IMO 720 is not future proof. Is 1080? With 4K, I can down resolve to any format the industry comes up with in the next 10 - 20 years. Which is why I am surprised to see Arri joining Sony and Genesis with a really high end 2K deliverable. Maybe theatrical will remain a really big TV screen, but I hope not. Since Red has made such a high resolution affordable, why not shoot for the best, instead of the lowest common denominator?

 

[Graeme Nattress]

With shooting 4k+ you can achieve a higher MTF at lower spatial frequencies also, which means for a better looking image than you could achieve at shooting 2k or 3k. Indeed, why do people think they shot 35mm film for TV shows for all those years? TV has been SD for oh-so-long, but still they shot 35mm film.

In a cinema, you could never see all the resolution available on the neg because of the film printing processes necessary to see a movie in a cinema.

It has always been the case that for high quality professional work that the acquisition resolution has been higher than the deliverable resolution. Why would that logic that has held since the beginning of quality TV and film now be sacrificed to the altar of "good enough" ??

Graeme

 

[David Rasberry]

As Michael pointed out Alexa nails the sweet spot for the current mainstream 2k/1080p deliverables market. No doubt it will be an excellent camera deserving of the ARRI name. To some degree, what Red is doing in post ARRI is doing in camera, IE the downscale from higher resolution to the deliverable format.
I'm sure they will produce a first rate solution for the higher res market too as it emerges. ARRI may not always be the first to the table with the very latest technologies, but when they do it they do it right.

 

[Tim Morten]

I don't think the argument about whether 4k is necessary/useful is a productive one.

Arri-philes will obviously contend that 2k is all that matters until 4k is everywhere. This is the EXACT same argument that companies with SD tech used when HD came out.

Is anyone making this argument because they genuinely feel that 2k is better than 4k? Of course not. Are they making the argument because 2k is cheaper? Nope. They are making the argument because 2k is all that they have to sell us today.

The 4k transition is happening, and we all know that. Until Arri has a 4k+ camera, they need to take the position that they're taking if they're going to get anyone to buy their camera. Nothing anyone says here is going to change that.

Meanwhile, everyone who owns a Red knows the difference. Everyone who compares a frame from Alexa to a frame from Red will also know the difference.

Let's just leave it at that... there's no qualitative argument that 2k is better than 4k (for ANY market), nor is there any business argument that 2k is better than 4k. The whole discussion just feels pointless.

Again, no offense intended to anyone: I understand that Arri needs to take the position that they are taking, and I would do the same if I were in their shoes. But this (Reduser) seems like the wrong audience to try to convince. We've already made the transition.

- Tim

 

[Chris Pickle]

...... Why would that logic that has held since the beginning of quality TV and film now be sacrificed to the altar of "good enough" ??

Graeme

I don't think everyone's "good enough" is the same. It doesn't always mean 4k vs SD. It might mean 125k lenses vs 20k lenses vs nikon f-mounts. It might mean a 1080 finish vs a 2k finish. It might mean the difference between an indie picture getting made and not getting made. And if it gets made under "good enough" circumstances, it might mean a future career for many of those involved.

Some might think "good enough" is a slippery slope. Others might think "good enough" is a necessary evil. I know you likely meant 2k Arri vs 5k Epic which is an incredibly valid debate, especially coming from highly knowledgeable people of things technical, but there are other times when "good enough" might be a legit discussion.

I'm an indie filmmaker currently in post on a Red shot feature. I've been continually bombarded with a zillion decisions on cost vs quality. It's exhausting but I have no choice. I couldn't afford 35mm film, so I'm thankful that the Red One was easily good enough to compete with film. I'm thankful that the f-mount allowed me to shoot very decent good enough nikon glass. I'm thankful that FCp & Prores HQ allows me to do a very decent 1080 master instead of an expensive online at a conform house. Same with Apple Color.

I became a fan of Red because of it's scrappy attitude that helped the indie folks. I sometimes wish Red had stayed a bit more scrappy and released a cheap S35 Scarlet that had a bit of over-cranking. 99% of feature films are made on a camera essentially like that.

Anyway... don't mean to debate one of the smartest guys at Red, all I can say is "stay scrappy"

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

This is such a pointless pissing match. I spent a lot of time with Alexa at the show. Wonderful camera, very well thought out. It is designed for exceptional 2K delivery, so what is wrong with that? Nothing. We are all going to be seeing a lot of the Alexa in the months and years to come. Arri will undoubtedly have an answer for shooting 4K / 5K etc..

The new Arri/Fujinon zooms are incredible. If there wasn't such a mob of people placing orders and pushing delivery dates into next year, I would have been seriously tempted to order an Alexa package just to get these lenses. I think keeping the Alexa camera busy will be a pretty easy thing to do. If I had more rental customers and a will to actually pursue a rental business, I would most definitely buy an Alexa, or two.

The future-proofing argument over resolutions is somewhat grey or mushy to me. I personally believe that images should be acquired with the most resolution or detail as possible. So in that regard, EPIC and 5K can not arrive fast enough for me. But in the spirit of arguing for "future proof" acquisition, the 5K argument defeats itself. 5K will ultimately be succeeded by higher resolution formats and alternative imaging technologies. It is only future proof in that 5K can provide resolution equal or better to that of the best 35mm film stock, which is wonderful, but who knows what the future holds. 5K is only "future proof" for the foreseeable future... There will be a day when images acquired on 35mm film and 4K or 5K cameras is no longer "good enough".

So to fault Arri for delivering a camera with incredible 2K+ output, something that Sony, Panasoic, Canon and JVC are not doing, seems a little strange. The rest of it comes down to buisness models, target markets, etc..

In the end, RED will still sell many more Epic and Scarlet-S35 cameras than Arri will sell of Alexa. But at a lower cost, so like I said, target markets. Different demographical considerations and business models. For me, what makes me choose RED, is not just the features of the camera, but company itself. And if not for RED, the Alexa would probably not exist. Or at least not today, in the form it does.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Is anyone making this argument because they genuinely feel that 2k is better than 4k? Of course not. Are they making the argument because 2k is cheaper? Nope. They are making the argument because 2k is all that they have to sell us today.

The 4k transition is happening, and we all know that.

- Tim

IMHO, the current transition is from HD to Stereoscopic HD in certain areas. The transition to 4K will probably happen some day. But surely not in the near future.

This is the reason why I believe that the 2/3 Scarlet with the mini primes will sell like hotcakes for stereoscopic productions. For stereoscopic productions a shallow field of view like we have with S35 is counter-productive. 2/3 seems to be the perfect sensor size. That also counts for 1080p regarding the double data-rate.

I would love to see something similar from Arri, a stereoscopic Alexa with 2/3 sensor and S16 lenses.

The argument of being future proved is interesting. Why was Avatar shot in 1080p (see above)? How many big budget movies are actually shot and posted in 4K? How big is the percentage of Red originated productions that end up in 4K? How big is the percentage of Red originated productions which life time is is longer than half a year?

Hans

 

[hdcrew]

I don't think the argument about whether 4k is necessary/useful is a productive one.

nor is there any business argument that 2k is better than 4k

- Tim

Unless as an owner/operator your clients won't shoot red 4K due to the additional post cost/requirements.

A 1080P deliverable out of the camera will almost certainly give a business advantage to the people that buy Alexa even if just in the short term, we're not all shooting Hollywood movies or even material will need to be 'future proofed'

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Good post, Jeff.

This is such a pointless pissing match. I spent a lot of time with Alexa at the show. Wonderful camera, very well thought out. It is designed for exceptional 2K delivery, so what is wrong with that? Nothing. We are all going to be seeing a lot of the Alexa in the months and years to come. Arri will undoubtedly have an answer for shooting 4K / 5K etc..

The new Arri/Fujinon zooms are incredible. If there wasn't such a mob of people placing orders and pushing delivery dates into next year, I would have been seriously tempted to order an Alexa package just to get these lenses. I think keeping the Alexa camera busy will be a pretty easy thing to do. If I had more rental customers and a will to actually pursue a rental business, I would most definitely buy an Alexa, or two.

The future-proofing argument over resolutions is somewhat grey or mushy to me. I personally believe that images should be acquired with the most resolution or detail as possible. So in that regard, EPIC and 5K can not arrive fast enough for me. But in the spirit of arguing for "future proof" acquisition, the 5K argument defeats itself. 5K will ultimately be succeeded by higher resolution formats and alternative imaging technologies. It is only future proof in that 5K can provide resolution equal or better to that of the best 35mm film stock, which is wonderful, but who knows what the future holds. 5K is only "future proof" for the foreseeable future... There will be a day when images acquired on 35mm film and 4K or 5K cameras is no longer "good enough".

So to fault Arri for delivering a camera with incredible 2K+ output, something that Sony, Panasoic, Canon and JVC are not doing, seems a little strange. The rest of it comes down to buisness models, target markets, etc..

In the end, RED will still sell many more Epic and Scarlet-S35 cameras than Arri will sell of Alexa. But at a lower cost, so like I said, target markets. Different demographical considerations and business models. For me, what makes me choose RED, is not just the features of the camera, but company itself. And if not for RED, the Alexa would probably not exist. Or at least not today, in the form it does.

 

[Álex Montoya]

Hans, you should use your real name.

 

[Steve Dent]

The "Avatar" argument is moot, because a lot of high end effects movies (like Avatar) will stay at 2K for awhile. In other words, their entire post workflow will tend to stay at 2K. Going up to 4K means that rendering will take 4x longer, so you will need 4x as many machines in your render farm, and it would make final comps painful, even on your Inferno type machines.

However, that's not too say you can't downconvert everything from the get-go, but that is an extra step next to Arri. But it should in theory produce a prettier, easier to comp/key image.