Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Michael Hastings]

Snips:

Its' all about "100 years of history" and "a name you can trust" and so on. Nothing meaningful (except the Prores module) as an advantage over Red+MX, let alone Epic.

The more someone talks about their laurels, the more I feel (and I'm sure I'm not alone in this) that they plan to rest on them. Not good.
....
If they keep up this strategy only a small segment of much older DPs, who do not feel technically competent to judge individual products on actual merit, and would thus only rely on a "brand they can trust" will chose the Alexa.

It makes no sense Gavin. Look at the price difference, which allows you to add a RED Rocket. You get instant-dailies, and remain true RAW, save space thanks from REDCODE magic... plus all the other stuff.

This baking and un-baking deal makes no sense, especially when you consider the resolution of Alexa is the delivery resolution so there is no room to throw away rounding errors. ....

Did I miss something? Instant dailies would be you when you can simply pull out the memory card and hand it to whoever needs it - like the Alexa prores. AFAIK Red Rocket gives you realtime or better than realtime output from your recorded media - good, but not the same. And again you are throwing out the term true RAW, when AFAIK it is substantially compressed RAW. And isn't Alexa native resolution even without the lookaround something like 30 or 40 percent higher than their intended 2K/1080P delivery resolution?

Rob seems happy to dismiss Alexa without seeing significant samples from the final product and doing true comparisons - as well as pigeonhole their only possible customer base as established DPs that are incapable of judging the "true" quality of the picture because they might not be as digitally savvy as he.

It seems like some people on this thread are fine with throwing out FUD that isn't even based on correct information - which disturbs me because I believe the R1 and upcoming Epic stand up very well on their actual merits and the fanboy-like misinformation only serves to undermine (at least somewhat) the overall reputation of the RED products which I have already invested in and/or ordered.

I suspect Alexa will provide very high quality, very professional, very cinematic pictures suitable for all types of current production. Maybe not as future proofed as my 5K epic-x, but as much as I appreciate the fact that my epic-x will provide resolution suitable for the next 10 years and I can afford it simply as a personal camera, the reality is I would like to make money renting and/or shooting with it over the next 18 months - not 8 years from now. This is an open forum so you can say whatever you want, but I personally would appreciate a higher level of discourse such that serious professionals don't have a reason to look in other directions.

 

[David Battistella]

Save the Sharks.

Saving the sharks is way more important than the FUD in this thread. Sometimes I think that fourteen year old DP's are running their mouth a bit to much in various threads.

REDUSER is a "community". It's not "hey, I'm here, I know everything, who the fuck are you what do you know?" frat party.

Geez. Civility. People.

Save the sharks.


David


PS: Micheal this is not aimed at you specifically

 

[David M]

Thanks for the opportunity to be allowed to communicate my views in your home, it means a lot.

:jacked:
Can I hijack this thread for a moment to ask the Official Arri word on something?
I keep seeing on this forum (and elsewhere) statements to this effect:
"Our new XYZ-ABC monitor/camera has (for example) 3840 x 2160 photosites/pixels. That's FOUR TIMES the resolution of our competitor's 1920 x 1080 models."

Funny, when I went to Tech school that equated to twice the resolution, not four times.
I have brought this subject up a few times on on this forum but my posts are usually ignored, or answered disrespectfully by the usual "empty vessels that make the most sound" :banghead:

I fully realize that satisfying the demand for technical accuracy often falls foul of the demands of marketing, but what is ARRis official stance on this?

 

[Jarred Land]

Hey David, dont worry lots of people make that mistake.

your thinking about single length measurements instead of volumes that resolution calculation falls under.

the easiest way to think of this

a 4 foot x 2 foot bucket can hold FOUR TIMES the volume of a 2 foot by 1 foot bucket.

or.. just multiple the numbers together to get a pixel number. 3960x2160= 8,553,600 vs 1920x1080= 2,073600 which is (roughly) four times the amount of pixels.

 

[Michael Bravin]

:jacked:
Can I hijack this thread for a moment to ask the Official Arri word on something?
I keep seeing on this forum (and elsewhere) statements to this effect:
"Our new XYZ-ABC monitor/camera has (for example) 3840 x 2160 photosites/pixels. That's FOUR TIMES the resolution of our competitor's 1920 x 1080 models."

Funny, when I went to Tech school that equated to twice the resolution, not four times.
I have brought this subject up a few times on on this forum but my posts are usually ignored, or answered disrespectfully by the usual "empty vessels that make the most sound" :banghead:

I fully realize that satisfying the demand for technical accuracy often falls foul of the demands of marketing, but what is ARRis official stance on this?

If you are asking if there is agreement that 3840 x 2160 is 4 X the pixel resolution than 1920 x 1080 pixels, well then yes I'd agree with Jarred's volume analogy and mathematics. I think the confusion is when you compare 2K to 4K as in film scanning and then we are referring to a scan as being twice the resolution not volume of pixels

 

[Jannard]

And EPIC 5K (5120 x 2700) is 6.67 times more pixel resolution than 1080P and 5.85 times more than 2K. Just in case you were wondering...

Jim

 

[Nik Skjøth]

All this uproar over WB is a bit much -- in all my years, I've never picked the wrong white balance for a scene, whether I was shooting film or video. The odds are low that you would pick 3200K for a scene and then decide in post that it should have been balanced to 5600K. People who need the options to completely change their mind in post about color don't sound very confident in their choices, or maybe the whole concept of having an artistic concept for how the scene should look

And sometimes all you can afford is to use available light. So imagine if you shoot indoor with 3200k bulbs, and in the background you have a window, shining 5500k sunlight. For the first time in history you have a camera which eliminates that problem and lets you do dual whitebalance in one shot.

 

[Casey Green]

All this uproar over WB is a bit much -- in all my years, I've never picked the wrong white balance for a scene, whether I was shooting film or video. The odds are low that you would pick 3200K for a scene and then decide in post that it should have been balanced to 5600K. People who need the options to completely change their mind in post about color don't sound very confident in their choices, or maybe the whole concept of having an artistic concept for how the scene should look -- i.e. previsualization and then execution -- eludes them. Or maybe I'm just old-fashioned and don't get the point of shooting footage in such a vague, non-descript and non-committed approach that it can easily be altered in post in order to "find" a visual concept for the shot after-the-fact. Where's the fun in that?

Interesting. This post somewhat surprised me.

To me, there are valid questions being asked here. I wouldn't say anyone's in an "uproar". (There's always a couple silly posts on any forum, but I think that's a bit of an over-statement. ).

The notion, however, that having WB adjustable via meta data is something that is only desirable to filmmakers who lack confidence in their choices or who don't understand proper technique seems a little off base. (Not to say there are not those out there who do use that approach...)

How WB relates to having more grading and color correction choices in post seems to be just another tool in the tool box. You can use it, or choose not to, but it's nice to have the choice in certain situations. And some artists may prefer to have that choice, while other may not.

I will take you up on your last bit there where you stated that maybe you are a bit old-fashioned. And again, even if that is the case here, there is nothing wrong with your preferred approach. Just another method, another choice.

I hope this is taken in the context of being part of a constructive argument. We are all part of a community in where technologies and methods are constantly developing and there are, in many cases, no right or wrong answers, just preferences. And one other note, David... I respect your work quite a bit. ;-)

 

[Dj Joofa]

And sometimes all you can afford is to use available light. So imagine if you shoot indoor with 3200k bulbs, and in the background you have a window, shining 5500k sunlight. For the first time in history you have a camera which eliminates that problem and lets you do dual whitebalance in one shot.

Reminds of that joke that the Americans spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars on developing a ballpoint-pen that will generate "gravity-effect" in space for it to work, and the Russians simply used a pencil.

If the only reason stopping you from filming the scene you described above was that technology was not mature enough then I don't know what to say. I'm not a cinematographer so I could be wrong, but isn't the option of something like using a gel for this situation available? Or, in the worse case, if that had stopped anybody from filming, why can't they change the location to a different room with a more controlled lighting environment. At least the film will get made instead of waiting for a technological miracle to happen.

 

[Nik Skjøth]

Why make it all that complicated.. All I said was.. regulative white balance in post makes things easier.. not a Go no Go... Geez.

Sure you can put gells on all the bulbs in a particular house, or you can put a filter over the window, or have a location scout look for a different house to shoot in which by chance has daylight bulbs installed. Heck you can keep spending time and money anyway you want, or you can shoot with a camera which dosnt care.. You decide.

 

[Matt W.]

And sometimes all you can afford is to use available light. So imagine if you shoot indoor with 3200k bulbs, and in the background you have a window, shining 5500k sunlight. For the first time in history you have a camera which eliminates that problem and lets you do dual whitebalance in one shot.

How? With extensive roto work to track windows and then mask out all foreground movement that passes them? Using color gels seems like a much simpler option and if someone can't afford photofloods ($5-8 each) or CFLs (less) or a roll of orange gel ($120) I can't imagine they can afford costly post work. And besides...generally, the window light would be sufficiently powerful to negate the practicals' influence entirely--and (depending on window placement and blocking) you'd have huge issues of contrast in this scenario, too, especially since you're pushing against like 500ISO wide open if the foreground (somehow) truly is lit solely by average indoor lighting against like sunny 16 (at 50ISO!) outside.

For the record, I once (just once!) shot a scene at 3200K instead of 5600K and color correcting this will be...a pain. And there is some value to being able to adjust from like 2900K to 3200K totally losslessly in post. But I'm with David, who's right as almost always: if the Arri really does bake in white balance, it's not a big deal at all and I'm certain they have their reasons. While red's method is preferable, if this is a deal breaker for you I hope you never have to shoot emulsion (or even traditional video) of any kind...

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Reminds of that joke that the Americans spent years and hundreds of millions of dollars on developing a ballpoint-pen that will generate "gravity-effect" in space for it to work, and the Russians simply used a pencil.

If the only reason stopping you from filming the scene you described above was that technology was not mature enough then I don't know what to say. I'm not a cinematographer so I could be wrong, but isn't the option of something like using a gel for this situation available? Or, in the worse case, if that had stopped anybody from filming, why can't they change the location to a different room with a more controlled lighting environment. At least the film will get made instead of waiting for a technological miracle to happen.

This thread is a comparison. Red removes headaches/hassles in these and other situations, by making many settings completely re-doable, without loss, in post. There is no wait needed, we do this now.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

But in the process you seem to be attributing an attitude to Arri (and experienced 'older' DoP's...) of just wanting to sit on their laurels and stick with the things they've done for 100 years.

The Arri D-20 was introduced (as in people put their hands on it...) in 2005. Red made their first announcement (as in people were talking about it...) in 2006. This doesn't say anything about the camera's qualities but it shows at least that Arri hasn't exactly been sitting still hoping to keep selling their legacy film cameras. I understand that you want more information and are dissapointed you're not getting it yet. That makes sense. But all the other sentiments that you're bringing to the discussion really don't make any sense to me.

For the record, I was not saying all older DPs, but a "certain segment of them" - meaning only some. I also am not saying even this subset is not sometimes brilliant and wonderful, just that digital tech is something they don't feel comfortable (this subset only) making judgments about.

My generation grew up with computers so fewer of us (albeit fewer does not mean all - there are many exceptions) have a problem with computer technology in any context.

That does not make me 14. I am in my thirties.

 

[Nik Skjøth]

Thanks rob, I was about to say... the camera exists.. You can choose to use it or not..

My example of the tungsten bulbs and the window was maybe a bad example, but dont take things so literally. And yes I think some people are to old fashioned in their thinking.. They have the Hollywood standard in their minds of how things are done. And think that all film crews consists of 20+ people..

But even so, if you were to take the example literally here goes:

In my case we are Two... Two guys to make everything work.. We have tight schedules and budgets.. If we are lucky to get a deal on a location (which has to be for free). We neither have time nor the crew to begin changing bulbs or putting gells (where btw those lamps may very well be in the shot.. So a gell would look pretty ugly. And chances are that the owner of the house would frown uppon when we start messing up their home.
YES those are the conditions of our work when time/money is an issue and you dont live in hollywood.

Post is another thing... I edit everything myself, and have all the time in the world to make it perfect

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I really enjoy DI and so I agree that more flexibility is a wonderful thing however there is another nagging voice in my head that grows increasingly shrill. It is related to that last point of yours.

It's always a primary concern of mine that I find a balance between speed and quality. I'm sure there has always been great pressure to move expediently on the prodction day, and I'm equally sure it will always be that way regardless of how quickly we work, so I worry that false confidence will lead to laziness and an overall decline in quality. It is important to take your time.

100% agreed - but being able to take the time is often contingent on having that time in first place, and mental space. The less to worry about on-camera in terms of settings, the better - it means more time left over for lights, filters, lenses, framing, etc. Sometimes speed of production is way, way out of my hands, dictated not just by other people on the production but available light, short windows for doing things like blocking traffic determined by the city, etc. Sometimes hurrying is the only option.

 

[Dj Joofa]

Hi Nik Skjoth, sorry if I sounded a bit harsh on you. I can understand your situation now that you have provided a bit more detail. My point was along the line that if this white balance issue, which is being debated to death on this thread, the major differentiator between two otherwise great cameras then I don't think that it is much of a technological bar for the other established company to catch up on it. The bottom line is that I don't think technically it is a big issue - one that sets a very high threshold that competitors can't get to.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

All this uproar over WB is a bit much -- in all my years, I've never picked the wrong white balance for a scene, whether I was shooting film or video. The odds are low that you would pick 3200K for a scene and then decide in post that it should have been balanced to 5600K. People who need the options to completely change their mind in post about color don't sound very confident in their choices, or maybe the whole concept of having an artistic concept for how the scene should look -- i.e. previsualization and then execution -- eludes them. Or maybe I'm just old-fashioned and don't get the point of shooting footage in such a vague, non-descript and non-committed approach that it can easily be altered in post in order to "find" a visual concept for the shot after-the-fact. Where's the fun in that?

I don't mean to shoot that way, but I have made slight mistakes on white balance, or had unforeseen tints in things for various reasons. I'm not saying several thousand K off, but a bit off? Yes, I'll admit it.

I'm not talking about getting lazy in general, just being able to not stress about more than a strict minimum of settings before shooting on the menu-side. After all, film has been shot "for post" for a long time - it doesn't mean that there is not a clear idea of what that post will be, or how to shoot FOR it - I'm not talking about randomness.

 

[Mitch Gross]

Whether White Balance is baked in or not has nothing to do with mixing color temperature within a scene.

Not exactly sure what ARRI is or is not doing with Alexa (will know soon enough), but I suspect it is similar to what Vision Research does with the Phantom CINE files. And if so, I'm all for it. Think of White Balace as an offset -- the sensor sees what it sees, and White Balance is a shifting of the color ratios. Uncompressed, compressed, wavelet compressed, etc., in the end the information will get funneled down in some way due to bit depth. There are not infinite options. So if a basic white balance offset is used to generally clue the choise of what's most valuable to pack into your available bit depth of file then it can mean a better picture as you will have more of the information that you actually want.

We can talk the theory of this all we want, but it is meaningless until we actually see what comes out of the camera. Not all CMOS sensors are the same, not all color dyes on Bayer masks are the same. Graeme is a smart fellow, but he knows wjat he doesn't know. And that is what is going on inside Alexa and why.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Did I miss something? Instant dailies would be you when you can simply pull out the memory card and hand it to whoever needs it - like the Alexa prores. AFAIK Red Rocket gives you realtime or better than realtime output from your recorded media - good, but not the same. And again you are throwing out the term true RAW, when AFAIK it is substantially compressed RAW. And isn't Alexa native resolution even without the lookaround something like 30 or 40 percent higher than their intended 2K/1080P delivery resolution?

Rob seems happy to dismiss Alexa without seeing significant samples from the final product and doing true comparisons - as well as pigeonhole their only possible customer base as established DPs that are incapable of judging the "true" quality of the picture because they might not be as digitally savvy as he.

It seems like some people on this thread are fine with throwing out FUD that isn't even based on correct information - which disturbs me because I believe the R1 and upcoming Epic stand up very well on their actual merits and the fanboy-like misinformation only serves to undermine (at least somewhat) the overall reputation of the RED products which I have already invested in and/or ordered.

I suspect Alexa will provide very high quality, very professional, very cinematic pictures suitable for all types of current production. Maybe not as future proofed as my 5K epic-x, but as much as I appreciate the fact that my epic-x will provide resolution suitable for the next 10 years and I can afford it simply as a personal camera, the reality is I would like to make money renting and/or shooting with it over the next 18 months - not 8 years from now. This is an open forum so you can say whatever you want, but I personally would appreciate a higher level of discourse such that serious professionals don't have a reason to look in other directions.

I am not dismissing Alexa - I am only dismissing the reasons for buying/renting expressed so far by any and all parties - I am commenting on info quality - I realize I cannot yet comment on the camera itself, and I am not doing so.. I specifically stated that I hoped more info would be presented in the future, and that it would be a successful camera.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The Red camera does not eliminate the color temp differences between sources, it merely captures them relative to its native color temp balance around 5000K. I could load daylight-balanced film stock into a camera, scan the negative, and get similar results. Or set the ARRI to daylight-balance. After that, the process of correcting the image in post for another color temp is the same. So I don't get this "first time in history you can have mixed color temp in the same scene" sort of line of thinking.

As for Red simplifying the number of settings, I don't see the difference -- for one thing, a color temp setting is fairly basic, like choosing a shutter speed - even consumer cameras don't feel this this too technical for the average person -- and for another thing, you set it on the Red or the ARRI, so either way, it's the same complexity of camera setting, the only difference is that one is only storing the info as metadata, the other is applying it in-camera. But you haven't simplified your work at all in terms of camera operation.

I suppose you could be in SUCH a rush that you didn't change the color temp when moving from tungsten to daylight, for example, but you'd have to be awfully distracted to not notice that the image is now very orange or blue on your monitors and eyepiece.

All I'm saying is that picking a base color temp to work in is not rocket science. If experience had taught me over the years that it was a real problem, yes, I'd be more for a system that didn't chose a WB setting until post -- but it just hasn't been a big deal. Exposure is more challenging that picking a base white balance.