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.
Andrew Wilding said:
Personally I disagree here - I don't think its possible to separate the pieces of a film in that fashion. I don't believe that the photography of a movie is merely presentation - for starters it is the only thing that separates movies from theater and makes film a distinct art. And the photography effects peoples emotions just as strongly as the acting and story, I think. When a movie is done correctly they all influence and blend into each other. Lighting and composition effect people much more than we give them credit for -they just dont know how to articulate it. Thats my feeling anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree with you, and well put. - I just wanted to throw out another way of thinking about things. But you're right - in the case of film the relationship is much deeper and more complex.
 
Marc Shipman-Mueller, ARRI Product Manager Cameras & Lenses

just wrote at the another forum (CML) about ARRI Alexa resolution:

"In the digital world, everything is temporary.

However, ALEXA will have a 3.5K sensor, producing gorgeous 2K and HD
outputs, for a while. The reason is simple. In choosing the sensor
resolution, we tried to find the best compromise between output resolution
on the one hand, and sensitivity and exposure latitude on the other.

More pixels = smaller pixels = fewer photons per pixel
= less sensitivity, lower exposure latitude, more noise.

Fewer pixels = larger pixels = more photons per pixel
= more sensitivity, wider exposure latitude, less noise.

Every manufacturer must find their best combination of factors. We are
convinced that for a while, HD and 2K output resolutions will be the
practical, day-to-day resolutions everyone will work in.

According to some people I have spoken with, there are fewer films posted in
4K this year than last. It is simply not practical yet. 4 times the data. 8x
the data in 3D!

So we have chosen the largest pixel we can use for a great HD and 2K output.
ALEXA uses about 3K pixels on the sensor, downscaled during the debayering,
for sharp HD or 2K images (there are, of course, actually more pixels on the
sensor for an overscan image in the viewfinder). The resulting pixels are
unusually large in today's world of tiny cell phone sensors, but give
fantastic low noise, high sensitivity and wide exposure latitude. Many DPs
and post people we have spoken to said that lower noise, higher sensitivity
and wider exposure latitude will make it easier and faster to capture good
looking images. "


Jim immediately replied:

"Fewer pixels = larger pixels = more photons per pixel = more sensitivity, wider exposure latitude, less noise."

Not necessarily...

...

Pixel design (and sensor design) has more to do with sensitivity and noise than pixel size.

Proof if this is that some sensors are getting better without increasing pixel size.

The M-X sensor is greater than 2 stops less noise (DR = signal/noise) than the M sensor... and they have the same size pixels.

It is quickly becoming apparent that there are different ways to skin the cat in sensors...


LINK >>>
 
David Mullen is correct the motion picture industry never rushes into anything. Digital acquisition has been creeping into high end features ever since George Lucas pushed it on Sony F900 cameras. Significantly still 80% of Hollywood movies are shot on film and whilst the numbers shot digitally are growing at a faster pace (pushed mainly by 3D) it will be at least two to three years before film shuffles out the back door. In commercials the balance is about 50/50 and in most countries digital has replaced 80% or more of the TV drama shows shot over film.
Its not quality in fact sorry to say quality is falling down the list but budgets that have dictated the switch to digital with many large production companies in commercials shooting on Canon 7D, 5DMKII and 1DMKIV for even car commercials for Lexus and Jaguar one has to say the process has gone to far or perhaps Mpeg 4 is the new gold standard!
Many teens are watching movies on iphones or streaming via the internet where the cinematic experiance is definately compromised so cost becomes king not quality.

Many here bemoan film saying it was elitest but by openning up the amount of material we now have produced everything about the process has been lowered (Im not talking about camera X over camera Y but the overall production). The audiance is more fragmented and priracy made more easy all because of that over used word "digital". Yet in some ways technically we have gone backwards with lip sync errors in broadcasting being the biggest bug bear of digital, along with any weakness in the signal causing blockyness.
Technology moves on and film is in its twilight years we only have to look at stills to see that but not all progress brings improvement in some ways we are dumb and dumber so why we fight over whether its 13.5 stops or 15 stops Apple looks forwards to its 2billionth download.
 
Hi Nova Invicta,

A sad and pessimistic view of the future. I think that there is probably some degree of truth of truth in what you say. I really hope that film keeps going for ever personally and if that is not possible then for as long as it takes to keep challenging digital sensor makers to keep improving until they match and even exceed the quality of film. However something will of course be certainly lost with the death of film - the texture, that amazing depth of colour...

What I hope for is the coexistence of a number of different subcultures or niches where everything can still exist. In particular, I think that there will always be people who will want to make only the highest quality images and who will never be satisfied with compromises and will choose personally not to be dictated to by a dumbing down kind of mass culture. I don't think that this is unrealistic.
 
The problem is that the industry went backwards... film is future-proof. HD is not even "present-proof".

Jim
 
I hope film goes on for a long time too, even if it no longer becomes the dominant process in filmmaking, the vague hope is that it remains as sort of a boutique product. But unfortunately, it takes a certain large infrastructure to support itself, even more complex than what b&w stocks need.

The sign that all good things come to an end was when Kodak killed Kodachrome. It reminded me of when Technicolor killed 3-strip photography by the mid 1950's and dye transfer printing by the mid 1970's, and then later Kodak stopped making the materials for dye transfer still printing. These were all high-quality technologies that produced unique colors and textures.

Somehow the notion that we can shoot digital and just create any look in post is not quite as romantic...

One of my personal hobbies is collecting art books on obsolete color processes like Autochrome, I find the textures so fascinating.
 
Curious, is there a name for stuff beyond HD? 4K was the beginning, M-X is now 4.5 but given everything is going all the way up to 28K, UHD seems close, ultra high definition, but it doesn't put into perspective what RED is since all the cams are beyond HD and you guys are closer to film...

EDIT:

Surely if there's enough demand someone will come back and bring the old ways of film back to life for those that loved film, obviously there must be ways of making it cheaper...advancements in technology and time will only tell... Tarantino already said he'll die with film, maybe not as dramatic but still...
 
Imran Farouk said:
Curious, is there a name for stuff beyond HD? 4K was the beginning, M-X is now 4.5 but given everything is going all the way up to 28K, UHD seems close, ultra high definition, but it doesn't put into perspective what RED is since all the cams are beyond HD and you guys are closer to film...

EDIT:

Surely if there's enough demand someone will come back and bring the old ways of film back to life for those that loved film, obviously there must be ways of making it cheaper...advancements in technology and time will only tell... Tarantino already said he'll die with film, maybe not as dramatic but still...
Click to expand...

Digital Cinema... :-)

Jim
 
David Rasberry said:
I watched (more slept through) Heaven's Gate on IFC the other night. Four hours of absolutely lovely and lovingly crafted cinematography that might have been a decent drama in half that time if it had any sense of pace and connection to the story. It was like Cimino was a 1st time amateur who couldn't bear to cut a single foot out of his imagery. Boring in the extreme. Beautiful photography that serves and moves the drama is much more interesting.
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with you more. A refreshing film to look at again in an age of adrenaline powered film more akin to video games then art. This is not to say that twitch filmmaking doesn't have its place, I enjoyed very much "Crank" for instance, but the slow pacing and lingering cinematography of "Heaven's Gate" is film as high art IMO.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Somehow the notion that we can shoot digital and just create any look in post is not quite as romantic...
Click to expand...

Shouldn't the romance be reserved for the performances, lighting, etc... : )

But I think I understand your point, and I think all that romance will still happen. It will be captured in the MD files, which all magic will be based on.
 
N_Villers said:
I couldn't disagree with you more. A refreshing film to look at again in an age of adrenaline powered film more akin to video games then art. This is not to say that twitch filmmaking doesn't have its place, I enjoyed very much "Crank" for instance, but the slow pacing and lingering cinematography of "Heaven's Gate" is film as high art IMO.
Click to expand...

It was luscious and beautiful, but had no coherent dramatic structure. I'm not necessarily a fan of the hyperactive overcut pace of a lot of current films either. An epic that to me demonstrates superb cinematography and an appropriate visual pace tied to a coherent dramatic structure is Lawrence of Arabia.
 
Roberto Lequeux said:
Shouldn't the romance be reserved for the performances, lighting, etc... : )

But I think I understand your point, and I think all that romance will still happen. It will be captured in the MD files, which all magic will be based on.
Click to expand...

I'm not being rational, of course, so I can't really defend myself from a technical or logical standpoint. But there is a romance to filmmaking in general, and to some bits of technology that have a history to them, and it's not particularly practical, but it's real. I did a low-budget movie where we borrowed a Louma Crane for one shot and the operator told us this was Crane #1 used on "1941", the movie that really revolutionized the use of remote cranes.

I once got to see the first photograph ever taken, by Niepce in 1826(!) -- for some reason, it's in Austin, TX at the Ransom Center -- and it's somewhat of a religious experience for the romantically inclined.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I'm not being rational, of course, so I can't really defend myself from a technical or logical standpoint. But there is a romance to filmmaking in general, and to some bits of technology that have a history to them, and it's not particularly practical, but it's real. I did a low-budget movie where we borrowed a Louma Crane for one shot and the operator told us this was Crane #1 used on "1941", the movie that really revolutionized the use of remote cranes.

I once got to see the first photograph ever taken, by Niepce in 1826(!) -- for some reason, it's in Austin, TX at the Ransom Center -- and it's somewhat of a religious experience for the romantically inclined.
Click to expand...

David... reminds me of my silver-halide prints from the old days. There is a romance to them. Peter Lik still prints using this process. But the end is near for a couple of reasons, the companies that make the equipment are out of business and the "footprint" left by the process is unacceptable these days.

Jim
 
Funny thing is that I went to an exhibit at the UC Riverside Photography Museum -- it was on the history of digital/electronic still photography and they had in display cases almost every significant camera dating back to the 1970's. That was also a bit of a nostalgia trip.

100 years in the future, some older person will be staring at a Red One in a museum display case and feel a romantic tug, maybe fondly recalling a time when movies weren't all-CGI, all-3D, and beamed directly into the brain...

Or maybe in the future, the entire camera will fit onto the sensor itself and thus be shaped like a credit card, and be near-impossible to handhold smoothly (and the lens on front will be huge, of course!)
 
One thing that bothers me a bit is that when someone tries to convince for film over RAW, some of them may misunderstand my conviction as a lack of this romance for visuals. I find digital acquisition every bit as romantic as film... Digital didn't just pop out of of a different dimension, it is as much a product of that 1826 photo as the latest S35 stocks.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Funny thing is that I went to an exhibit at the UC Riverside Photography Museum -- it was on the history of digital/electronic still photography and they had in display cases almost every significant camera dating back to the 1970's. That was also a bit of a nostalgia trip.

100 years in the future, some older person will be staring at a Red One in a museum display case and feel a romantic tug, maybe fondly recalling a time when movies weren't all-CGI, all-3D, and beamed directly into the brain...

Or maybe in the future, the entire camera will fit onto the sensor itself and thus be shaped like a credit card, and be near-impossible to handhold smoothly (and the lens on front will be huge, of course!)
Click to expand...

I just hope we aren't obsolete tomorrow...

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top