Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Tom Lowe]

Stephen I was meaning to dig it up myself. Can you bump it over there if you find it?

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Definitely great to see Arri's, a company of which products I love, and Red's, a company which I come to Love even more ;~) be compared, friendly, with their latest cameras, even so for me there still remain very important factors, first it should in deed have been Epic, with Alexa, both still in Pre-Production (prototypes) cameras, and both the latest for both companies, second, well lets not mention PRICE, third, still the recording factor of the RED cameras is just simply something that nor I nor many I know, will be willing to let go of any time soon, as recording to CF or RED DRIVES and or RED RAM, is just simply to convenient, fourth, as S3D is really taking off in ways that most people I talk to on a daly basis still don't grasp, will se the EPIC and Scarlett become tools of choice more then the RED ONE it self and or ALEXA or any other camera out there for many more then ONE REASON.

What I'm really happy about is the fact that other serious camera manufacturer such as Arri, are now seriously developing a new ERA of Digital Cinema Cameras, film is not dead, but for me is surely like as if was in a deep coma ;~)

 

[Robert Frank]

I know my comments might not be the most germaine to the conversation at hand, but for me to be able to afford to own a camera that competes in this league is just nothing short of miraculous. I am sure Alexa is going to be a killer camera, with an appropriatly killer price tag.

Thanks Red.

This is my sentiment also.

 

[michael zaletel]

Film will hang on another few years (maybe longer) just like it did in still photography for one primary reason... The ability and the right to shoot film is what sets the top DP's and Directors apart. It is as much a status issue and a political issue (if not more) than it is a technological or quality issue. In other words "I am valuable in this industry because I can shoot film and I can shoot film because I am valuable". Eventually it will change to "I am valuable because I can light and shoot digital better than anyone else and I can have the budget to light and shoot digital better than anyone else because I am valuable". But for now, the powers that be will hang on to the what they think is the last vestige of power, prestige and value that sets them apart from the tens of thousands of people that shoot Red, 5D2 and HD. Eventually, they will realize that it is their talent, not their tools that will always set them apart. Some have already realized this and have been shooting features on Red for some time doing it better than anyone else can using same tools.

-michael zaletel

 

[David Rasberry]

What is killing film in the still market outside major cities is the lack of decent lab facilities. This has forced photographers I know who would still prefer to shoot film into the digital world. Lab services have deteriorated drastically in both availability and quality.

 

[Brian D. Goff]

If you're talking about a sensor - they have one fixed sensitivity, and it's down to how the pixels light gathering is designed and the filters that come before it in the optical chain.

Graeme

Thanks Graeme - I'm starting to understand

 

[M Most]

Film will hang on another few years (maybe longer) just like it did in still photography for one primary reason... The ability and the right to shoot film is what sets the top DP's and Directors apart. It is as much a status issue and a political issue (if not more) than it is a technological or quality issue.

Michael, my guess is that you either don't know or haven't talked to very many "top DP's and directors," because if you have, you would find that the vast majority are very interested in testing anything new and seeing what they can accomplish with it. If they find advantages for a particular project, they are usually the first to suggest using new cameras, lenses, or anything else. They would also give you some very real and very good reasons why they would want to shoot film, and equally good reasons why they would want to shoot digital on certain projects. It has very little to do with the issues you're suggesting, and everything to do with producing the best and most appropriate imagery for the particular story being told in the most production friendly manner possible given the particular production circumstances and likely distribution paths.

 

[Jon Farhat]

Place for film

Place for film

The timeframe really isn't important... we all know its going to happen, its just a matter of time, and we are definitely at or near that cusp.

Film will likely always be around.. there really isn't a very good reason to shoot 16mm ( or even 8mm) anymore but people still do.. for aesthetic reasons.

Just like in the professional 35mm still world, (which I just read that 92% of published photographs are acquired digitally) some people still use film.. and likely will continue to do so as long as they keep making it.

Remember when they said we'd be a paperless society when digital arrived? We've increased paper consumption by stunning magnitudes as hardcopies of things we were afraid we'd lose to electronic failure.

I'll bet slow film stocks will assume a greater role in the form of 4K separation negatives of finished material which was originated and produced and delivered digitally. Mostly laser written.

 

[M Most]

If demosaic is done in camera for a 1080p output, it makes the quality of the in-camera demosaic and downsample vitally important.

That's true. It's also true that Arri has already been doing a real time, in-camera demosaic quite successfully with the D21 for over 2 years now. That's one of the reasons that camera has been reasonably successful in high end television drama work, since it fits into a "standard" (the quotes are quite intentional ;-)) ) post path.

 

[Harry Clark]

Mike, you beat me to it. I had to run out with our 3 1/2 year old to take him to swim class (way more important than reduser)
The D-21 does a VERY respectable debayer in camera, and for a lot of jobs, a nicely debayered 1080 picture in real time with no post processing is perfect. Is it a costly and/or complex ASIC? Is it expensive? I don't know. Nor do I care. But realtime processed 1080 makes or breaks a camera rental on many projects. SO...
I hope that Epic will provide this functionality too.
Cheers,
Harry
ps- even if it were only available as a module, I'd still buy it...

 

[Julio Quintana]

Jim,
With all the confusion surrounding "native sensitivity", maybe we need a new definition in the digital age. Most people think of ISO in terms of the exposure level needed to see into the shadows. But since that is such a huge range now, MAYBE IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR ISO TO REFLECT THE EXPOSURE AT WHICH THE SENSOR CLIPS. That is the only number that is fixed and not subjective. Just a thought.

 

[Michael Bravin]

First - no such thing as a "real asa" for these cameras ... I can guarantee that the raw linear light sensor data is way too dark lit ISO800 to be of any use at all.

Graeme

With all due respect Graeme, this is without your having seen ALEXA, or having seen the sensor technology, capture methodology, raw data etc, in my view from this side a "guarantee" at this point is shaky at best. In due time on schedule as promised we will present ALEXA to the general public and we can then have a healthy and productive discussion about what we all see and can measure. Of course I believe we have the goods, but its really up to our customers and professional DP's to decide what we are offering, don't ya think?

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Jim,
MAYBE IT MAKES MORE SENSE FOR ISO TO REFLECT THE EXPOSURE AT WHICH THE SENSOR CLIPS.

Imagine you have a sensor with 40 iso (clipping point), this doesnt tell you anything about you mid gray value wich is what we call "a visible image"...

I should elaborate more... but kids just came in...arty:

Pat

 

[Julio Quintana]

Imagine you have a sensor with 40 iso (clipping point), this doesnt tell you anything about you mid gray value wich is what we call "a visible image"...

Pat

That's my point. Right now 320 ISO doesn't tell us anything particularly useful about the mid gray value of the M-X sensor since the range of acceptable mid gray exposures is so large. When people hear 1600 ISO, they think "Holy crap. I'll have to ND everything", because they don't understand that the sensor's "clipping ISO" is 320.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

With all due respect Graeme, this is without your having seen ALEXA, or having seen the sensor technology, capture methodology, raw data etc, in my view from this side a "guarantee" at this point is shaky at best. In due time on schedule as promised we will present ALEXA to the general public and we can then have a healthy and productive discussion about what we all see and can measure. Of course I believe we have the goods, but its really up to our customers and professional DP's to decide what we are offering, don't ya think?

No, I think you should read what I wrote very very carefully. And then go look at the ISO definition of ISO for raw data. Basically, it says there is no real definition for raw, and just go with what the manufacturer recommends for a good image. I specifically mentioned a linear light image which we all know that without a proper development curve will look too dark. That's how linear light looks and works. The point being that it is raw data + curve that develops the image and we call the ISO based on where that development curve puts mid grey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_speed#Digital_camera_ISO_speed_and_exposure_index good reading on what a mess "ISO" is.

Graeme

 

[C.H.Haskell]

In just weeks of being on the market, MX is already head to head with ARRI's latest offering. Enough said. RED is in good company and when I see good competition, i see progress. (film has another 30 years at least, my2¢)

 

[Graeme Nattress]

That's my point. Right now 320 ISO doesn't tell us anything particularly useful about the mid gray value of the M-X sensor since the range of acceptable mid gray exposures is so large. When people hear 1600 ISO, they think "Holy crap. I'll have to ND everything", because they don't understand that the sensor's "clipping ISO" is 320.

What is a "clipping ISO" and how does a cinematographer use that with a light meter?

Graeme

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Even film's "rating" is just a suggestion by Kodak or Fuji. After designing a stock, and testing it, they settle on a speed that produces the "best" image, in their opinion.

Harry and Greame summed it up IMHO...

Dop has to learn and to know how to handle the camera output, wich is wunderfull, as it is a project based choice. Now you can always go as Kodak/Fuji/RED tell you to treat your media.

Pat

 

[Mike Gross]

With all due respect Graeme, this is without your having seen ALEXA, or having seen the sensor technology, capture methodology, raw data etc, in my view from this side a "guarantee" at this point is shaky at best. In due time on schedule as promised we will present ALEXA to the general public and we can then have a healthy and productive discussion about what we all see and can measure. Of course I believe we have the goods, but its really up to our customers and professional DP's to decide what we are offering, don't ya think?

I get graeme's point as "Linear light" is always dark regardless of camera because of it's very nature. With the dual gain announced in Alexa, outputting an image that's not linear light is similar to taking a linear light image and transforming it into something else.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

I get graeme's point as "Linear light" is always dark regardless of camera because of it's very nature. With the dual gain announced in Alexa, outputting an image that's not linear light is similar to taking a linear light image and transforming it into something else.

Although, remembering that you must transform to linear light before matrix to get colorimetry to work.

Graeme