Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • 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.
For everyone who sells a $1m stock library there are 1k people whose footage never sees the light of day again. There will always be the exception but most of the people making camera decisions aren't owner/operators they're producers, DPs and other creatives or executives who have 0 financial incentive to manage a stock library. They will rent the camera which delivers tomorrow what they are most looking for to air on Saturday and replace on Wednesday. :D Even then going back and re-mastering a TV episode or film is probably extremely unlikely unless you're talking about a film or episode of historical significance.

If people aren't making money leveraging out the footage they own the copyright on, they probably just don't know how to approach putting it to work for them. Nearly every professional I know in my end of the motion media industry, who owns copyright to a footage library, has it working for them, either as stock, repurposing into other TV productions, or both.

The largest portion of the motion media industry in terms of number of productions done per year is the gigantic non-hardlined EFP industry. This is mobile, non-union television, Blu Ray, and DVD production in a wide variety of genres, some of which are alternative sports, travel, wildlife, music, nature, tourism, high-end corporate, cultures, food, lifestyle, and many other genres. Red One has been used heavily in these genres, but with their smaller size, increased frame rates, and other hybrid and EFP-friendly features, Epic and Scarlet will be used even more heavily than Red One has.

The largest share of these non-hardlined EFP productions are independently produced and then self syndicated by medium down to boutique sized production companies - plus those same companies are frequently packagers of non-hardlined EFP cable TV specials and series for various networks. Those who independently produce and self syndicate productions nearly always hold the copyright to the footage acquired in their production, and frequently to the programs themselves. These same companies also usually own their own field production equipment, including camera systems - and they comprise the single largest block of camera buyers in the entire motion media industry. They rarely rent camera systems - it makes much better fiscal sense to own their cameras - and they now purchase a high percentage of the affordable high-end DC cameras like R1 (as they will with Epic and Scarlet).

As I noted in my last post, many cable TV networks regularly re-purpose and re-edit footage from their footage libraries into new series - and for those same shows they also license lots of stock footage.

I don't doubt that your experience in the industry has formed your opinion on footage use options, just as has experience in feature and union EFP experience formed the opinions of others - specifically, that footage libraries aren't a viable revenue option. But, as I've illustrated above, there is a huge and thriving, non-union, mobile non-hardlined EFP industry which is the largest portion of the motion media industry - and that industry buys the most camera systems, and most people who produce and shoot in that industry leverage out the footage for which they own copyright.

By the EFP-friendly modularity and flexibility of the proposed specs for Epic and Scarlet, Red is obviously aware of the massive sales potential of the industry portion I described above - and so is Arri, thus their EFP-friendly move to offer a ProRes recording option. Its a big, wide industry out here - and the needs and business model of some portions of it are very different than others. But that diversity makes it quite cool I'd say...
 
To be fair, I should have said "unsubstantiated claims". Maybe Arri will back them up, but so far they have not.

I can see the argument that "The most advanced digital camera system" might be hyperbole/opinion.

However "The highest dynamic range and sensitivity on the market" doesn't sound like a matter of opinion to be. That sounds like a definitive, measurable claim. If it's true, and it's proven to be true, I have no problem with Arri saying it.

It is the absence of that substantiation that causes me to take umbrage.

- Tim

I think part of the confusion here is two things 1) that ARRI is saying "on the market" and 2) "system". 1): I'm guessing that they are saying that their cameras are on the market now (or with realistic intro dates in the very near future - similar to Apple saying April 3 for the ipad - it was a future date when announced but pretty firm from a company that has a history of meeting product dates) versus the RED EPIC which is still in "coming soon" mode.

and 2) they are pushing the system concept of being able to produce in camera, essentially ready to edit, files in a common format. While we can argue that RED footage isn't that hard to get into a usable format there is some merit to the rapid workflow argument, as working with RED is not as simple as many other formats - raw has its advantages and disadvantages. Whether that is enough to make Arri's the best "system" is arguable but as M Most says that moves us into the area of opinion.
 
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?p=579329#post579329

5K at 120fps! Holy Crap!

Arri = $70k for 3k raw at 60fps (plus $40k for a codex)
Epic = $28k for 5K at 120fps

It's mindboggling that one can get twice the framerate, twice the resolution, and raw for 3 times less money.

For that much savings I could buy 16 RED Rockets. Ha!

RED1-M-X with REDBomb EVF, RED Rocket card and AJA KiPro ProRes 422 recorder is still much cheaper than just ALEXA (a virgin!) body.

where you get REDCODE (RAW) 4.5K future proof resolution and immediately ready to edit Apple ProRes 422 out of the rig unique workflow solution.
 
It's mindboggling that one can get twice the framerate, twice the resolution, and raw for 3 times less money. !

And still higher fps if you go windowed too. To me, it's (resolution x fps x features / price) = Epic.

Graeme
 
Or fun accessories, or... Either way, a significant saving coupled with vastly greater flexibility for creative options is not to be sniffed at.

Graeme
 
Will they never do re-runs of Benjamin Button or the Star Wars follow up's (to mention a few) because of the resolution they were recorded at? And if they do will audiences stage walk outs of cinemas complaining about the poor resolution or will they enjoy the stories?

Thats a good point but your example of Star Wars is a bit off!!!! I am sure no one will ever want to see Star Wars because of its great story!
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/04/04/90-minute-star-wars-attack-of-the-clones-video-review/
 
Just because people don't walk out of the cinema when the print is dirty or out-of-focus doesn't give us the excuse as movie-makers to shoot everything out of focus, or have compression artifacts everywhere in sight. We should always be striving for the best image we can make!

Graeme
 
Just because people don't walk out of the cinema when the print is dirty or out-of-focus doesn't give us the excuse as movie-makers to shoot everything out of focus, or have compression artifacts everywhere in sight. We should always be striving for the best image we can make!

Graeme

The main reason I avoid seeing movies in a theatre is that
they are out-of-focus far too often.

Also, Graeme, I love your work!
 
Uh, last I looked Alexa wasn't shipping today, either.

Ahhhhh, ya........exactly!

Your picking at nits. Everyone at the DGA theatre was welcome to hold one of the many Alexas there, focus it, shoot in available light, record to an SxS card and edit the footage in FCP.

The CEO of Arri was there and this was his final official public event. The CEO of Fujinon was there. You think they were unveiling a product that won't be available for a considerable period of time?

You really think Alexa's delivery date is going to be comparable to Epic's? Come on now.
 
Your picking at nits. Everyone at the DGA theatre was welcome to hold one of the many Alexas there, focused it, shoot in available light, recorded to an SxS card and edit the footage in FCP.

The CEO of Arri was there and this was his last final official public event. The CEO of Fujinon was there. You think they were unveiling a product that won't be available for a considerable period of time?

You really think Alexa's delivery date is going to be comparable to Epic's? Come on now.

Yes - as of today - I think they will be close!


:nads:
 
Well didn't I time my post just perfectly, LOL!

What's also funny is that even though I've been defending Alexa, I left the presentation distictly impressed w/ RED. For example, the size and weight of Alexa will appeal to some people, but I found it quite heavy. And with a heavy camera, all the camera support equipment becomes much more expensive and cumbersome.
 
Well didn't I time my post just perfectly, LOL!

What's also funny is that even though I've been defending Alexa, I left the presentation distictly impressed w/ RED. For example, the size and weight of Alexa will appeal to some people, but I found it quite heavy. And with a heavy camera, all the camera support equipment becomes much more expensive and cumbersome.

We forgive you. :thumbup:
 
How the term Latitude is used by Cinematographers

How the term Latitude is used by Cinematographers

Yes, cameras only have DR - they don't have latitude. It's the combination of scene and camera DR that leads to latitude.

Say you're shooting a typical scene of a "Macbeth chart" - which has a 5 stop range between the brightest chip and the darkest. Say your camera has a 13 stop DR. That means you've got 8 stops left - 8 stops of latitude. You can over expose the chart by 4 stops or under expose by 4 stops and still get all the detail in the chart. However, practical latitude will be less as when you try to exercise that latitude, the image will get noisier as it gets more under-exposed.

Now say your scene is a DSC CDM with cavi-black, giving you around 10 stop scene DR. Your latitude is now 3 stops, maybe less with your noise tolerance.

So latitude is utterly scene dependent, DR is utterly camera dependent.

Graeme

Graeme

With all due respect, when cinematographers refer to latitude, they refer to the range of exposure from shadow to highlight that they can capture in a scene. They use their light meter or their experienced eye to determine how a scene will look when exposed.

Redefining the terms OR insisting on a scientific definition doesn't make communication easier but more difficult. I think MOST cinematographers (at least all that I have ever spoken with) understand latitude as I have described it and therefore I have always chosen to speak with them, in their language using their terms as THEY understand them.

They want to know how much latitude a camera can capture without clipping highlight detail and without crushing or overwhelming shadow detail in noise. When we test the camera we test using our DRTC to determine what that range is, so that they can use this as their reference.

Im not criticizing your possibly more precise definition, just advocating for talking with professionals in their language.

Regards

Michael
 
Graeme

With all due respect, when cinematographers refer to latitude, they refer to the range of exposure from shadow to highlight that they can capture in a scene. They use their light meter or their experienced eye to determine how a scene will look when exposed.

Redefining the terms OR insisting on a scientific definition doesn't make communication easier but more difficult. I think MOST cinematographers (at least all that I have ever spoken with) understand latitude as I have described it and therefore I have always chosen to speak with them, in their language using their terms as THEY understand them.

They want to know how much latitude a camera can capture without clipping highlight detail and without crushing or overwhelming shadow detail in noise. When we test the camera we test using our DRTC to determine what that range is, so that they can use this as their reference.

Im not criticizing your possibly more precise definition, just advocating for talking with professionals in their language.

Regards

Michael

Well then... it appears that there are far too many technical professionals
who are technically uneducated regarding the real difference between
dynamic range and latitude. They are similar, but they are not the same thing.
But your point is well taken.

Graeme is correct, and some/lots of the cinematographer you know are wrong.
:smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:
 
Well then... it appears that there are far too many technical professionals
who are technically uneducated regarding the real difference between
dynamic range and latitude. They are similar, but they are not the same thing.
But your point is well taken.

Graeme is correct, and some/lots of the cinematographer you know are wrong.
:smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin: :smilewinkgrin:

One could also say that Michael is being practical and sensible, and the statements being made are needlessly arrogant. I've found time and time again that most people - but in particular, working cinematographers - much prefer the former to the latter.

But each to their own. :closedeyes:
 
Graeme

With all due respect, when cinematographers refer to latitude, they refer to the range of exposure from shadow to highlight that they can capture in a scene. They use their light meter or their experienced eye to determine how a scene will look when exposed.

Redefining the terms OR insisting on a scientific definition doesn't make communication easier but more difficult. I think MOST cinematographers (at least all that I have ever spoken with) understand latitude as I have described it and therefore I have always chosen to speak with them, in their language using their terms as THEY understand them.

They want to know how much latitude a camera can capture without clipping highlight detail and without crushing or overwhelming shadow detail in noise. When we test the camera we test using our DRTC to determine what that range is, so that they can use this as their reference.

Im not criticizing your possibly more precise definition, just advocating for talking with professionals in their language.

Regards

Michael

Michael, you should really read what your own web site has to say first on the subject:

"Latitude is the capacity of camera negative film (especially) to hold information over a wider brightness range than is needed for the final print. This provides a degree of freedom that is needed because it is impossible to see if the exposure is totally correct until the film comes back from the laboratory – long after the set has been struck and everyone has gone home. Latitude provides room for later adjustment in printing to compensate for over or under exposure."

Which is exactly what I'm saying - lattitude is exactly what the word says - how much lattitude you have to screw up your exposure and still get a working image.

And just because cinematograhers say 4:2:0 is a colour space doesn't make it so, nor does describing a video gamma as linear make it so. So just because people use terminology imprecisely doesn't mean we should follow them.

Kodak use the phrase "increased highlight lattitude" to show how with new film stocks you have more lattitude in the highlights, or in other words, you can over-expose more and still get a usable image. Again, this fits in with the way I use the word "lattitude".

Interesting that http://www.arridigital.com/forum/index.php/topic,440.0.html shows correct use of the terminology for Dynamic Range, again using it just how I define it to be the total range of recordable values.

Kodak has a rather unwieldy definition: "Latitude: In a photographic process, the range of exposure over which substantially correct reproduction is obtained. When the process is represented by an H & D curve, the latitude is the projection on the exposure axis of that part of the curve that approximates a straight line within the tolerance permitted for the purpose at hand." contrasting with their more succinct definition of Dynamic Range: "Dynamic Range: The range of values between the darkest and brightest perceptible points in an image.". Key point is the phrase "within the tolerance permitted for the purpose at hand" referring to the scene and "range of exposure over which" referring to how much room you've got to miss.

So no, I'm not re-defining terms, just using them as intended. If cinematographers are using terminology imprecisely, it is our duty to educate them, not continue to use and promulgate misinformation.

Even Wikipedia gets it right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_latitude

Graeme
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top