Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris Clogg said:
Sorry if I'm getting off topic to the original thread, but:

Speaking of digital, I actually really don't like the way TV and news-shows look. It almost annoys me, they have these whopping cameras on their shoulder that somehow manage to produce a mediocre image... I'm pretty sure my little canon hv20 could do better... sorry if I'm being harsh lol. I do understand that they don't have time to grade/maximize quality.

Also the look of Soap operas doesn't work for me (not that I'd watch them anyway I guess haha)... what I wonder is if they shot the soap opera with a full 35mm film camera (or Red etc., with all same lighting/set), if it would look better. Better in my terms means something like this:

Soap opera:
687_2_75629.jpg


"Better" film look:
ben-kinsley-shutter-island.png


Although, it probably would make 0 difference to viewership because most people don't care.

A lot of digital looks so great and it's really led me to believe it's about natural light (or fake light that looks good), with proper framing techniques and then grading right.
Click to expand...

or fake light that looks good

Fake light? Is that light that doesnt actually illuminate anything? We usually call that shadow or negative fill LOL
 
To be clear, all jokes aside, that wink was in hopes to communicate that I was being nice. I was hoping to see some of that good sense of humor I think you may have, though I have never had the pleasure of meeting you in person.

I found it funny that you posted a link to your forum, but not offensive. I did however, and obviously, see it as an opportunity to make a joke, while at the same time try to get you (someone whom I admire) to answer what I thought was a very good and interesting point. I am trying to learn.

You are not an evil troll, neither am I. I guess the only way I can be clear enough so that you don't misunderstand my posts as fan-boy "blabbery", is to say that I am merely one of the "young" guys trying to pick the brains of people like you, Graeme, Jim... people who's minds are at our reach, thanks to forums like this.

Hope that is clear. I don't want to bump into you one day and miss the opportunity to learn from you due to a cold shoulder caused from a misunderstanding.
 
Michael Bravin said:
Carsten

The chart is designed by a very well respected image analysis expert Dr. Hans Kiening, and comes with a complete explanation of the design philosophy methodology and process, which anyone can repeat. It was designed so that ARRI engineers could measure the performance of our sensors and system design. It is now available to the general public for use as well as comment and evaluation. We welcome intelligent, rational discussion about issues someone may have with the methodology. It was designed to be a non-skewed reference that everyone could use and compare and contrast performance of various imaging systems including D21 vs ALEXA. In the past various grey scale charts were used some backlit some front lit some uncalibrated and yet the results were compared. Hans felt that these methodologies were not scientific or repeatable enough and did not give an absolute quantifiable measurement so he designed a methodology. This is not a marketing piece. I think the industry will find it a valuable tool for comparing performance of imaging systems. From HDSLR to 8K UltraHD systems, Film and Digital. After careful evaluation your comments and anyone else's are welcome of course.
Click to expand...

My point was more about politics and perception than if ARRI it skewing the chart results. I don't think they are but there will always be questions about the right way to measure DR from each manufacturers perspective and having a chart from a third party that doesn't make cameras would be less political. Testing methodology is always going to be highly debatable.
 
Michael Bravin said:
or fake light that looks good

Fake light? Is that light that doesnt actually illuminate anything? We usually call that shadow or negative fill LOL
Click to expand...

Sigh I'll change my post to say non-sunlight or fill.

SURELY YOU LIVE IN MY INSANE WORLD OF FAKE LIGHTS!!! lol
 
Hans Kiening said:
I guess it´s the best if I try to answer your very valid question myself. First of all the statement concerning straylight refers to approaches with transparent charts with large illuminated areas, second and that is the real important issue - Densitometers were built to measure optical densities of max 3 (the equivalent of 10 f-stops) beyond that they get horrible inaccurate. The spectroradiometer we are using is accurate up to 20 f-stops and this is more the range we need to certify the chart.

The straylight problem in our approach is minimized by the fact that we are using very small illuminated areas so we get away with the aperture of the radiometer.
Click to expand...

Thanks for helping to answer my questions. I'm learning lots. Now because a practical camera has a lens in front of the sensor, when you point the camera at the chart you're measuring the lens sensor camera system. It looks to me that the way the chart is measured for calibration is different o how it is used with the camera?And you have different lenses will that not make some difference? What about the resolution of the sensors. What about color temperature of the backlight of the chart?

Albert
 
Just trying to understand what that article is saying, I'm guessing they are saying that the M-X Red is very usable to around 1600, and at 3200 still reasonable... which seems like a fair assessment based on the limited amount of M-X footage I've seen....

....and then I think they are saying that the Alexa is reasonable at 12,800ASA... again it's kind of odd wording in the article so I'm just wondering if someone in the know can clarify a bit.

IBloom
 
I Bloom said:
Just trying to understand what that article is saying, I'm guessing they are saying that the M-X Red is very usable to around 1600, and at 3200 still reasonable... which seems like a fair assessment based on the limited amount of M-X footage I've seen....

....and then I think they are saying that the Alexa is reasonable at 12,800ASA... again it's kind of odd wording in the article so I'm just wondering if someone in the know can clarify a bit.

IBloom
Click to expand...

I don't think that is what the article said...

Jim
 
Jannard said:
I don't think that is what the article said...

Jim
Click to expand...

I read it as 6400 was reasonable for mx and on alexa maybe 12800 for some special cases.

Ive heard of a feature shooting 12800 on mx also so maybe mx is also usable at 12800?
 
Casey Green said:
Just curious... how much will the ARRI ALEXA Cameras sell for? (or rent)

I thought I heard somewhere around $70,000 at the low end? Anyone have more info?
Click to expand...

$70k for the 1080P version
$100k for the one that can do the raw (what resolutions?)
$140k for the one that can do anamorphic and OVF
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
To be clear, all jokes aside, that wink was in hopes to communicate that I was being nice. I was hoping to see some of that good sense of humor I think you may have, though I have never had the pleasure of meeting you in person.

I found it funny that you posted a link to your forum, but not offensive. I did however, and obviously, see it as an opportunity to make a joke, while at the same time try to get you (someone whom I admire) to answer what I thought was a very good and interesting point. I am trying to learn.

You are not an evil troll, neither am I. I guess the only way I can be clear enough so that you don't misunderstand my posts as fan-boy "blabbery", is to say that I am merely one of the "young" guys trying to pick the brains of people like you, Graeme, Jim... people who's minds are at our reach, thanks to forums like these.

Hope that is clear. I don't want to bump into you one day and miss the opportunity to learn from you due to a cold shoulder caused from a misunderstanding.
Click to expand...

No worries Robert...I was just teasing you, ask away, that's the point of these lists
 
I may have over explained myself but I am glad it was clear. I am not a DP, camera manufacturer, or rental house, so I am glad to bend over backwards if it will get me more free lessons.

So, what would be your highest no-compromise ISO rating for M-X?
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
I may have over explained myself but I am glad it was clear. I am not a DP, camera manufacturer, or rental house, so I am glad to bend over backwards if it will get me more free lessons.

So, what would be your highest no-compromise ISO rating for M-X?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "no compromise"?

Jim
 
I know, it isn't very clear. How about this, how about indiscernible noise at 1080p/2k?

What could be a better way to be clear? Other than a third party side by side with that prototype of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top