Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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.
When I say
"Asus Rampage Formula II has three onboard USB 1.0 connectors"
Click to expand...
do you think of some cluncky solution that you just named "onboard" for the sake of making it sound better?
Onboard means onboard - as in not-added-as-a-200-pound afterthought. Let's keep it that way.
 
Guys,

maybe I'm not so good to precisely define a kind of "onboard recording" but in any case it always means additional attachment of something to the original body design.

Here below you can see and find the same "onboard recording" unit from S.Two OB-1

that was exactly used in that Alexa promo shots and it came as a solution from Alexa's older brother D-21.

So in terms of RAW recording Alexa didn't bring anything new than D-21 already didn't have.

ob1_topload_800x450.jpg

OB-1 onboard recorder top-loaded on D-21.

ob1_backload_800x450.jpg

OB-1 onboard recorder back-loaded on D-21.

LINK>>>

So at the end what Alexa brought as a new recording option is ProRes 422/4444 inside the body integrated recording probably for editing proxies or broadcast ready compressed format.

This sounds more like a RETRO-GARDE solution than it should be an AVANT-GARDE innovation in terms of recording quality or technology.
 
I'm as guilty as the next guy of confusing the term "onboard" with "internal" or "integrated". Since we call monitors on the camera "onboard" as well as batteries, etc. that are attached onto the camera, then the card slot should be called "internal" or "integrated", anything small & attachable that moves with the body "onboard" (or maybe "external onboard"?)
 
To me, the difference is in if there's a direct attach, or via umbilical cables. Not that I think such a distinction is the argument here - I see it more of a size / weight consideration than the actual means of attachment.

Graeme
 
The term has been bastardized by marketing. I see it used in other areas with a wide variety of applications. In computer land, it typically is synonomous with integrated. Along with words like

embedded
onboard
integrated
optional
detachable
external

But truth be told, "ONBOARD" has different connotations. For computers, "ONBOARD" typically refers to the motherboard, which then onboard indicates integrated.

I agree with Graeme's approach. Unfortunately, I am sure marketing for most companies wont.

To me, those recorders look "EXTERNAL" :)
 
Erik Franzén said:
When I say do you think of some cluncky solution that you just named "onboard" for the sake of making it sound better?
Onboard means onboard - as in not-added-as-a-200-pound afterthought. Let's keep it that way.
Click to expand...

Rick is right I think. This is the root of the problem right here. Erik's quote re: USB connectors would more accurately be described as integrated rather than on-board. On the other hand, if I were to balance a 200lb Weider plate on top of my 5d (note that I didn't even say attached... And I said five-d hehe) then it would be accurate to say that I put 200lbs on-board.

I know it's not the point, I only point it out for the love of the language and as Graeme has indicated in the past, it is in the interest of clear and concise communication.

Are Red modules more securley mounted, more reliably connected, more elegant and lighter? All indications so far seem to indicate that they will be. They are apparently better engineered. That is ultimately the point I assume Sanjin was leading up to.
 
Last edited:
Wow... bigger, heavier, slower, lower res AND more expensive.

Someone out there must really love them some ProRes. :)

- Tim
 
My question would be this: How many other ProRes recorders have to come to market before Red agrees that there is adequate demand, and subsequently makes their own module for us?

Of course to fit in the Red ecosystem it would have to be superior in all regards. That should go without saying. ;-)
 
Last edited:
Scott Crawley said:
My question would be this: How many other ProRes recorders have to come to market before Red agrees that there is adequate demand, and subsequently makes their own module for us?

Of course to fit in the Red ecosystem it would have to be superior in all regards. That should go without saying. ;-)
Click to expand...

My question would be whether you're willing to accept the larger size, larger weight, lower framerate, and lower resolution AND pay more than twice as much, just to avoid a transcode. :)

Maybe Red will create a ProRes module... dunno. Given the advantages of working in R3D through Avid, Premiere, Scratch, etc., and existence of the 264 module for dailies, they're already hitting all my needs. I understand that others want ProRes though; I get that.

I would hope that all the other benefits of Epic over Alexa, and the availability of real-time transcode with a Rocket, still make a pretty compelling package.

Cheers,
Tim
 
Tim Morten said:
My question would be whether you're willing to accept the larger size, larger weight, lower framerate, and lower resolution AND pay more than twice as much, just to avoid a transcode. :)

Maybe Red will create a ProRes module... dunno. Given the advantages of working in R3D through Avid, Premiere, Scratch, etc., and existence of the 264 module for dailies, they're already hitting all my needs. I understand that others want ProRes though; I get that.

I would hope that all the other benefits of Epic over Alexa, and the availability of real-time transcode with a Rocket, still make a pretty compelling package.

Cheers,
Tim
Click to expand...

It is very compelling. Some are happy to edit ProRes out of camera. It has lower overhead than R3d and you can cut it easily on a laptop. If ProRes suits you for delivery, and you don't need to make extensive DI changes then you are done. Unless I'm misaken, you can't say that with h.264. Otherwise you send your edit then to the DI tools of your choice and conform to delivery formats via the R3d's. Is that a reasonable workflow?
 
Last edited:
Scott Crawley said:
No doubt Tim, but others are happy to edit ProRes out of camera. It has lower overhead, and you can cut it easily on a laptop. Send your edit then to the DI tools of your choice and conform to delivery formats via the R3d's. Is that a reasonable workflow?
Click to expand...

Personally, I find R3D to be low-overhead enough. But I do understand that there are those who are going to stick to ProRes. My point is just that a real-time transcode on a Rocket is less of a trade-off than all the other compromises involved with Alexa (size, weight, frame-rate, resolution, cost, etc).

Cheers,
Tim
 
I am in fact a stickler for language.

On board in a most traditional sense:

available or situated on a ship, aircraft, or other vehicle.

This doesn't even require attachment, simply to be situated. An object of smaller mass in a state of relative rest on, in or contained by an object of larger mass.

Now the computer world has taken it and perverted it to mean, "integrated".

On-board Computing:

denoting or controlled from a facility or feature incorporated into the main circuit board of a computer or computerized device.

While I am obviously a proponent of D-cinema, I do like some things to stick with the old ways. Me personally I define " on board" in a traditional sense.

To me, the codex onboard recorder is just that, "an object of smaller mass in a state of relative rest on, in or contained by an object of larger mass." If the codex was larger than the Alexa, then I would say that the codex has an onboard camera.

The design and build quality look top notch. I am sure this camera and system will do VERY well. Episodicals are going to eat this thing up like hotcakes.

I would also like to point out that the visual reference Sanjin gave, in the form of stills from the short/test, was not then new codex onboard.

All that being said.... The Alexa is 12lbs 13" long and 6" wide and high. The codex onboard is 5.7lbs 8" long and 4" high and wide.

Thats 17.7lbs and 596 cubic inches to be able to record 3.5k raw at 60fps*.

The R1 is 10ish lbs and 405.6 cubic inches, with almost no mass added via the CF card, and recording 4k, 3k and 2k raw at 30fps, 60fps and 120fps accordingly.

(* yet to see any literature that states the onboard can record Arri raw at 60fps. 60fps has been stated for the codex but for 1080 and 720 formats.)

(no batteries, or viewing options were included in these figures)


With the MX sensor in the R1, this looks like the apples to apples comparison. The Epic is a different animal, that will warrant a new set of comparisons.
 
Tim Morten said:
Personally, I find R3D to be low-overhead enough. But I do understand that there are those who are going to stick to ProRes. My point is just that a real-time transcode on a Rocket is less of a trade-off than all the other compromises involved with Alexa (size, weight, frame-rate, resolution, cost, etc).

Cheers,
Tim
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but if you don't want to wait... If you don't have a dedicated DIT, or you prefer the DIT spent their time doing something else, then the module makes sense.

I'm lobbying for a Red module, nothing Alexa.
 
Tim Morten said:
I think we're agreeing, but maybe I'm confused... :). R3D is my preferred editing format.

Cheers,
Tim
Click to expand...

We're definitely not agreeing, but that's nice that you like to edit R3Ds. Good for you.

Ideally, everyone would but chances are, as we have seen, that not a lot of NLE's are going to be able to match Red's rapid development. In the past 3 months I've had to deal with at least 25 small to very large post houses who cannot keep up with Red, as well. Each one seems to have a different workflow and all of them weren't aware of the past couple color science updates.

Installing a rocket in your bay might be easy for a company with low overhead, but with dozens of bays it's simply not cost effective.

Essentially I think editing R3D's sounds great in theory but it'll end up being like the proxies until everyone's completely updated to Red's current specs... until they change again. There'll be a few months of good integration, then a format change, a color science change, resolution, etc...

What about MC5 systems without rockets? 1/2 debayer, 1/4? How well is it going to work with footage shot at varying resolutions or aspect ratios? Does it look at RSX files or RMD files, or any? I'm sure we'll see, but unless MC5 has some serious debayering & scaling built in, the results are not going to be great. And when those RC100+ bit rates come out...
 
CJ Roy said:
We're definitely not agreeing, but that's nice that you like to edit R3Ds. Good for you.

Ideally, everyone would but chances are, as we have seen, that not a lot of NLE's are going to be able to match Red's rapid development. In the past 3 months I've had to deal with at least 25 small to very large post houses who cannot keep up with Red, as well. Each one seems to have a different workflow and all of them weren't aware of the past couple color science updates.

Installing a rocket in your bay might be easy for a company with low overhead, but with dozens of bays it's simply not cost effective.

Essentially I think editing R3D's sounds great in theory but it'll end up being like the proxies until everyone's completely updated to Red's current specs... until they change again. There'll be a few months of good integration, then a format change, a color science change, resolution, etc...

What about MC5 systems without rockets? 1/2 debayer, 1/4? How well is it going to work with footage shot at varying resolutions or aspect ratios? Does it look at RSX files or RMD files, or any? I'm sure we'll see, but unless MC5 has some serious debayering & scaling built in, the results are not going to be great. And when those RC100+ bit rates come out...
Click to expand...

The system I am using to edit R3D in real-time is three years old, and I don't have a Rocket. Am I running full debayers at 4k? Of course not. But I would argue that a partial debayer is perfectly adequate as an offline format. It's not clear to me why you think a Rocket is requisite. More convenient? Definitely.

There is always some confusion when new standards emerge, and yes the post world is struggling to come to terms with R3D. But make no mistake, R3D is indeed a new standard, and the amount of Red footage shot is increasing exponentially. I'm sure you deal with more post houses than I do, but in my experience, native Red workflow is very much on everyone's mind. Post is a service industry, and the customer demand is increasingly for Red.

Peace,
Tim
 
Tim Morten said:
The system I am using to edit R3D in real-time is three years old, and I don't have a Rocket. Am I running full debayers at 4k? Of course not. But I would argue that a partial debayer is perfectly adequate as an offline format. It's not clear to me why you think a Rocket is requisite. More convenient? Definitely.
Click to expand...

I think this is the attitude coming from post that many DP's find frustrating. And I've had many similar talks with post guys about color and resolution which showed a blatent disregard for the DP's intentions image-wise.

The thing I hope you'll have some consideration for is that the images you're viewing are someone else's work. It represents them and their reputation. You're not the only one viewing that offline, the clients, directors, producers, agency, studios, etc are as well. So what may be adequate to you, may not be adequate to the person who shot it and it may not be the representation that they prefer, within reason.

I just had a post house tell me the other day that it was perfectly fine if all the flesh tones were green. All because they're waiting on redline. That's just fucking crazy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top