ARRI ALEXA LF - 4k, FullFrame announced

[Brian Boyer]

Really? And not because You try to back up Your argument by hiding behind pretty much every DoP's opinion?
Now let me ask You for Yours - what's a film look?


A? They can't all be film looks, so which one is it?

Okay, I see what's going on here. You're not being nearly as deep and philosophical as you think you are, but I will play along. What do you mean I'm backing up my argument by hiding behind pretty much every DoP's opinion? Hiding?

I'm afraid you're going to have to use your words better because I'm not following your point at all.

I didn't reference something external to them. I referenced something internal to them; their opinion based on their personal experience, that directly speaks to your initial stated opinion, which you put forth as if it were fact.

Were you asking me what I think? Is that what you mean by hiding - that I didn't answer your questions?

I didn't answer them because I thought they were pointless, as asked. I will answer in response to your last post. So, what's a film look? I'll say this. Celluloid has certain visual characteristics that exist to various degrees and in various proportions depending on a number of factors.

If another medium or imaging technology, in this case, digital video, comes sufficiently close to mimicking these characteristics in both the relevant and the necessary relative proportions, then that medium or technology can be said to also possess the look of film.

Having said that, I don't know what you're on about when you say your examples can't all be film looks. Of course they can, because film itself had different looks depending on some of the factors I alluded to earlier.

Those different looks notwithstanding, as long as the underlying characteristics of film that are largely responsible for its look are still present in sufficient quantities, the look of film is maintained.

 

[Sabovic Adis]

Okay, I see what's going on here. You're not being nearly as deep and philosophical as you think you are, but I will play along. What do you mean I'm backing up my argument by hiding behind pretty much every DoP's opinion? Hiding?

Philos...:banghead:



Your words:

(...)your simplistic statement contradicts pretty much every DoP coming from(...)

So, You speak for pretty much every DoP (as if they were idiots who can't speak for themselves)? Or simply repeating their opinions because You have none? What kind of a argument is that?
What do You have to do with their opinions?

I'm afraid you're going to have to use your words better because I'm not following your point at all.

I know.

I didn't reference something external to them. I referenced something internal to them; their opinion based on their personal experience, that directly speaks to your initial stated opinion, which you put forth as if it were fact.

Again, stop referencing other people. Speak for Yourself!

Were you asking me what I think? Is that what you mean by hiding - that I didn't answer your questions?

Yeeeees...

I didn't answer them because I thought they were pointless, as asked. I will answer in response to your last post. So, what's a film look? I'll say this. Celluloid has certain visual characteristics that exist to various degrees and in various proportions depending on a number of factors.

If another medium or imaging technology, in this case, digital video, comes sufficiently close to mimicking these characteristics in both the relevant and the necessary relative proportions, then that medium or technology can be said to also possess the look of film.

Having said that, I don't know what you're on about when you say your examples can't all be film looks. Of course they can, because film itself had different looks depending on some of the factors I alluded to earlier.

Those different looks notwithstanding, as long as the underlying characteristics of film that are largely responsible for its look are still present in sufficient quantities, the look of film is maintained.

When we talk about exposure latitude, I think in stops, resolution => in pixels, sharpnes => line pairs etc. There's also data - rates, bit - depths, color - spaces, You name it...But when You say "film look", what do You mean by that? How do You measure and express it? Do You think Fuji or Kodak. 5219 or 2383? What film You're talking about exactly?
If You ask me about Alexa look, clunky comes to mind... :biggrin:

 

[Frank Glencairn]

LOL - every flag, every light, every butterfly and probably every bit of set design makes a bigger difference, than what camera you use - it's called PHOTOGRAPHY for a reason, and it happens in front of the camera - no corner cutting here.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

9 stops over Neutral Grey?
I think we had +6 and -5 with vision2 stocks to the printed film.
Who needs to be a DP with 9 stops over Neutral Gray? Or do you want to make HDR movies?

 

[Björn Benckert]

9 stops over Neutral Grey?
I think we had +6 and -5 with vision2 stocks to the printed film.
Who needs to be a DP with 9 stops over Neutral Gray? Or do you want to make HDR movies?

Not vice to compare stops on film to digital. Totally different behaviour one is linear the other is not. Its bit like comparing a rubber band to a ruler.

 

[Marcel Zyskind]

All this talk about image quality, dr etc is fine. Both camera systems are capable of extremely beautiful images in the hands of talented people. I think we can all agree to this.
What no one talks about is this.
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc2-red-evf-oled
I mean come on?
Professionals want a professional viewfinder, not some thingy on a bendy stick. And a decent and simple operating menu, that you can acces quickly when everything is going ape shit and light is dropping by the minute. And also works remotely, when you are on a technocrane or russian arm or whatever. All these years Red has been ignoring this. Arri has this sorted. It's simple, quick and intuitive.

 

[Björn Benckert]

All this talk about image quality, dr etc is fine. Both camera systems are capable of extremely beautiful images in the hands of talented people. I think we can all agree to this.
What no one talks about is this.
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc2-red-evf-oled
I mean come on?
Professionals want a professional viewfinder, not some thingy on a bendy stick. And a decent and simple operating menu, that you can acces quickly when everything is going ape shit and light is dropping by the minute. And also works remotely, when you are on a technocrane or russian arm or whatever. All these years Red has been ignoring this. Arri has this sorted. It's simple, quick and intuitive.

Hmm.

I dont agree. Sure there is remote controls for arri. Price of those is quite hefty, normally you dont get one included in the rental package. And whats wrong with the red viewfinder? To me it works great and there is plenty of ways to mount it. Mine, before it was stolen was on the WD nato arm or directly attached to camera. Also if you want a wired solution iPhone and fool control is very fail safe if run by a wire. Wireless solutions to control cameras have so far showed to be quite bad, no matter what brand.

 

[Brian Boyer]

LOL - every flag, every light, every butterfly and probably every bit of set design makes a bigger difference, than what camera you use - it's called PHOTOGRAPHY for a reason, and it happens in front of the camera - no corner cutting here.

That's arguably, and probably, all true, Frank. However, being the forum of a camera manufacturer, we tend to talk in terms of maximizing whatever contribution the camera does make to the image. But, somewhat related to your point, I've been thinking about what happens in front of the camera as it relates to color science.

I mentioned earlier there may be a difference in aesthetic goals between how RED and Arri approach color. I can't say who has what philosophy between those two but let's say there's two unknown companies and one favors accurate colors while the other favors more pleasing colors.

The color science that favors accuracy, in practice, could conceivably put more pressure on the production designers, set dressers, wardrobe, hair and makeup to be on point with color palettes, color contrast, etc. in order to produce a pleasing image. When they are on point, it makes the DP's and colorist's job much easier.

And that's assuming the shoot has the time and budget for such a crew. It may be all up to the lone shooter, who may not possess any of those skills or even consider them when on jobs.

Now, let's say the company that favors more pleasing colors sacrifices some accuracy and tweaks certain colors to lean one way or another to produce an image they think is more pleasing to the eye overall.

That camera might give the lone shooter a bit of an advantage over using the more accurate camera straight out the box because it automatically makes the types of adjustments you might eventually make in post to the more accurate camera.

If you compare images from both cameras, the ones shot with the lone shooter with the more pleasing color science may compare favorably to the more accurate color science and a crew that nailed the set and wardrobe design.

Conversely, the lone shooter with no production design chops who's shooting on the cam with more accurate colors may find getting a more pleasing image challenging or at least a little more work.

I'm not saying this is definitely the case or this line of thinking has any merit, only I have given it some thought.

(Okay, here's the part of the program where I start to use music and audio analogies...a lot.)

It's kind of how consumer stereo speakers and headphones work. They're tweaked to enhance or accentuate the highs and lows and may tame the mids somewhat because that's what registers as sounding better to most people. To a point, louder also gets interpreted as sounding better.

Audio monitors intended for studio use are generally designed to have a flat frequency response from as low as they can go (based on their size and architecture) up to 20KHz and beyond. Compared to home stereo speakers, they may sound dull and lifeless, even though they are more technically accurate.

 

[David J. Buchanan]

Fascinating read indeed. But all RED really needs to do is lower the pricing for us owner/ops.

 

[Brian Boyer]

9 stops over Neutral Grey?
I think we had +6 and -5 with vision2 stocks to the printed film.
Who needs to be a DP with 9 stops over Neutral Gray? Or do you want to make HDR movies?

I'm pretty sure you're talking about the HDR of HDR photography. In that case, the answer is that's not really the look I'm going for. However, HDR in terms of what's happening on the display front, then yes, absolutely. Aren't we already, by virtue of shooting an a RED or Alexa?

Besides, I already said I'd take a range of only 15 (usable) stops if it meant I can get 9 up top and all that was left after providing a buttery smooth highlight rolloff for the bottom was 6. Hells yeah.

Alls I'm sayin' is, eventually, some company is going to do 9 stops over middle gray because progress. It's inevitable. How do I know this? I'm glad you asked.

(More audio analogies)

For the most part, if you want a good predictor of what's coming in the digital video world, all you have to do is examine what happened in the audio world, both with analog and digital. Video is more computationally demanding so it's lagging behind by some years.

96KHz digital recording used to cost an arm and a leg. 192KHz recording used to cost both arms and both legs. As I type this, I'm looking at an audio interface I bought more than 10 years years ago for $500 that records at 192KHz.

I can get one that does it for $150 today. https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Scarlet2i2G2 Ironically, it's part of the Scarlett (with an extra "t") range of interfaces. The point is, almost nobody needs 192KHz, but it's there if we want it.

Analog is back in a big way. Vinyl is back in a big way. I make the type of music that has stuck with vinyl all along but now there's like a 6 month backlog because record companies big and small are repressing classic albums on vinyl as well as releasing new stuff on it. Best Buy sells vinyl for cryin' out loud.

Digital hasn't gone anywhere but it has largely shifted its main focus on recreating, modeling and otherwise mimicking all those things people thought they hated about analog but now miss.

Technology will prevail here. I'm just trying to convince RED to get there first in way a that I believe will make the most impact when competing with Alexa for a certain share of the market. Like I said, maybe I'm wrong. If I am, I don't know what's left to try because everyone has tried everything else.

My point is when 9 stops over middle gray with no special ratings and no futzing about with NDs is a thing, there will not be rioting in the streets by people demanding to know why there's so much room up top. So, let's not pretend there would be.

But, you've seen this movie before. If Arri gets there first, Reduser will turn into angry mob central with people worried about what's going to become of their investment in RED, their business models and their ability to compete in the marketplace. Past is prologue, as they say.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

All this talk about image quality, dr etc is fine. Both camera systems are capable of extremely beautiful images in the hands of talented people. I think we can all agree to this.
What no one talks about is this.
http://www.red.com/store/products/dsmc2-red-evf-oled
I mean come on?
Professionals want a professional viewfinder, not some thingy on a bendy stick. And a decent and simple operating menu, that you can acces quickly when everything is going ape shit and light is dropping by the minute. And also works remotely, when you are on a technocrane or russian arm or whatever. All these years Red has been ignoring this. Arri has this sorted. It's simple, quick and intuitive.

+1 This bomb is a mess. You got a to small picture and you don't see the small details and focus. No wonder most fo the DP shoot with a 9'' LCD... I bought the Blackmagic with the Woodencamera upgrade. Pretty nice combo but it's a workaround.

And if I can add. Sound is another mess. Why should you add this module wich is 1kg and 10cm thick to get 2 XLR inputs? Who needs a redvolt? Put a slot for Superslot HF reciever and some good Sonosax preamps! Please ;-)

 

[Brian Boyer]

Fascinating read indeed. But all RED really needs to do is lower the pricing for us owner/ops.

Okay, I'll be the one to say it since I'm already getting on everyone's nerves. I'm sure RED loves and genuinely appreciates every one of their customers. I really do. However...

Higher pricing tends to help keep out the riffraff. By riffraff, I mean those less-than-talented folks who aren't doing RED (or any other company's) image quality any favors. This is a lesson that, although loathe to admit it, I believe RED learned the hard way in the beginning with the R1.

Let me explain. The number of talented people in the world and the degree to which they're talented doesn't change based on the price of gear.

It probably follows a bell curve, with the flanged part of the left side being where the horribly untalented people are, the large hump in the middle being where most people fall, and the flange on the right being where the unbelievably gifted people are.

Lowering prices democratizes things such that more gear gets in the hands of people who have more talent than wealth. The part people tend to forget is that proportionally more people of mediocre talent can also more easily afford the gear.

There will proportionally be far more people making things that are just okay to downright awful than there are people making amazing things. Multiply that if the piece of gear is a hot item.

I remember Jim getting heated on several occasions because it seemed people simply refused to protect the highlights on R1. People were shooting garbage and proudly posting it like, "Hey, look what I did."

Now, I'm not suggesting RED is artificially inflating its prices. What I'm saying is it's in their (and anyone else's) best interest to keep their cutting edge, flagship products at cutting edge, flagship prices, based on what the industry as a whole is offering.

I mean, they could lower the price of Monstro to $60K but, for most people, that might as well still be $80K. Plus, people in this very thread have complained about how much REDs lose their value. Dropping prices, although making it easier to buy, also contributes to the devaluing conundrum down the road, I would think.

Maybe I'm wrong. It's a tough call.

 

[Björn Benckert]

+1 This bomb is a mess. You got a to small picture and you don't see the small details and focus. No wonder most fo the DP shoot with a 9'' LCD... I bought the Blackmagic with the Woodencamera upgrade. Pretty nice combo but it's a workaround.

And if I can add. Sound is another mess. Why should you add this module wich is 1kg and 10cm thick to get 2 XLR inputs? Who needs a redvolt? Put a slot for Superslot HF reciever and some good Sonosax preamps! Please ;-)

Strange comment I think.

The latest itteration of the red evf I find very good. Also Arri does not have anything even close to the red touch screens and also the sidekick thingy and side handles is somthing that differentiates red from the rest. Not to mention swapable power units, different I/O options. Sound etc.

From reading this thread all I hear is people freaking out that arri is releasing a huge studio camera. Something no one in thier right state of mind would buy to use as their own camera. Even renting it does not make a lot of sense for most projects, as you will get 2 minis for the same rental rate. Then also, great you got the options of shooting raw 4.5 or colorbaked prores, not both. So pick one almost double the bit rate of current alexas (the producers post and dit will not like it much) or burned in kelvins and iso.

Its like all of a sudden we got 20 pages of comments where all reasons to use red is wiped out.

Bad EVF? Give me a break. Even the first bomb evf is quite an achivement small, only one cable and no you dont pull crucial focus looking trough the evf and you dont do it looking at the 9” or trough the alexa viewfinder. You mesure and set your marks and you use the punchin function.

also regarding sound. why record it on camera? most using alexas dont. Normally you lock timcode and let the dit sort it. if you shoot red its fairly easy to just use the onboard mic for reference and use a sound auto sync app to lock the sound guys files to the r3d files. Running sound cables to cammera usually gets quite messy. and if the internal mic is not enough for reference there is a jack on every io module, as long as the mic you hook up there is not your primary one then big conctors is quite overdue as I see it.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Your words:

So, You speak for pretty much every DoP (as if they were idiots who can't speak for themselves)? Or simply repeating their opinions because You have none? What kind of a argument is that?
What do You have to do with their opinions?

In your initial post, you did not make it clear that when you typed "You" you were talking about me specifically and not the general, editorial "you" - which I now see you capitalized both times then and a bunch of times in your last post, I guess as a way to make that distinction.

That's not really a standard way of stressing emphasis in writing and I just thought you had a problem with capitalization. I read your "You" as translating to "one." People capitalize all types of stuff that doesn't seem to need it. You could've been clearer in that regard, but whatever.

Again, stop referencing other people. Speak for Yourself!

See above, which is the only reason I mentioned other DPs.

When we talk about exposure latitude, I think in stops, resolution => in pixels, sharpnes => line pairs etc. There's also data - rates, bit - depths, color - spaces, You name it...But when You say "film look", what do You mean by that? How do You measure and express it? Do You think Fuji or Kodak. 5219 or 2383? What film You're talking about exactly?
If You ask me about Alexa look, clunky comes to mind... :biggrin:

This is the part of your argument where I think you're trying to be philosophical about the look of film. I see people asking the questions you are more often in relation to something being called "cinematic" looking.

I think people are trying too hard to sound deep when they ask what that term means as well, because I think it refers to a style of lighting and scope and a whole host of there things that, when absent, make the image look less like the well-made feature films and TV we're used to seeing.

Now, since you're asking that question of the look of film, I find it a little odd because different film stocks of different formulations and from different manufacturers still work by the same basic process and will share characteristics across the different incarnations, but I've already described what I mean.

(more music talk)

Asking me about the film look is similar to if I say that when I plug my electric guitar straight into my audio interface, it doesn't have that amp sound and then you ask me,"What is the amp sound? To which amp are you referring? Are you talking tube or sold state?," all to suggest that the sound doesn't really exist.

It's the fucking sound you get when you plug an electric guitar into an amp, the changes and enhancements to the sound the amp makes, which will be different for every guitar and amp, and the sound coming out of the amp, traveling through the air and reaching your ears while also being influenced by the room acoustics.

Despite all those variables, there's a characteristic sound that's consistent across the countless permutations that says,"Hey, how ya doin'? I'm the amp sound." For me, it's the same with the look of film.

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

Red could've released an Official "KodakPack" and done the leg work for the 90% of projects that would've been more than content with that... The ironic thing is that it wouldn't even have to be all that accurate; just labelling LUT/Gamut options as "Kodak Pack", "Fuji Pack", "Agfa Pack", and officially coming from RED, would've been enough to delight users and make the typical Arri-user at least a little curious.

This. Official emulsion LUT from Red, 5 brand, 5 versions for each sensor. Not as download on the DSMC tool kit no one knows, but as part of the Firmware upgrade available from the start.

I use these kind of LUTs on every shoot, and it's really efficient beside the cool factor. Clients love it, directors love it. And it's cheap.

 

[Björn Benckert]

with ipp2 it would not need to be for each sensor.

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Strange comment I think.

I was just writing to get my post count closer to yours. ;-)

Pat



Ps: Bomb sucks and sound module could be way better

 

[Bérenger Brillante]

with ipp2 it would not need to be for each sensor.

Indeed, but not all the dsmc2 have IPP2.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Its like all of a sudden we got 20 pages of comments where all reasons to use red is wiped out.

No it's not. Red has its place, and a really solid one, but just not a relevance in the cinema and TV world like Arri has. In commercial land Red has clear advantages and still is widely used by a faithful user base. With Monstro, full frame and 8K there are many applications in the TVC market that make Red favourable. But in demanding hands of camera staff, in a fast pace, rough remote locations and technology hostile environments Arri cameras seem to perform better and more reliably. At least this is word of the street.

Colour wise I find Arri leading if we are talking about out-of-the-box picture quality. This headstart, however, dwindles when it comes to grading. Red's colour science of today is very good and in a ACES/linear grading setup on par with Arri's nice roll-offs and skin-tones. This is the reason why Panavision uses for its new camera Red's Monstro sensor (and partially probably the colour science). So doubtless, from this perspective, Red is a leading technology company for digital moving pictures cameras.

But the awkward, nerdy and pretty error-prone RAW workflow with its WYSIWYG traps bit many badly in the past and today (just check the numbers of threads dealing with 'noise') and is responsible for Red's questionable reputation in post land. On the other hand Arri managed to came off with an easy to understand and comprehensive RGB ProRes workflow based on LogC. And, thus, created a world-wide industry standard.

Lastly, many in the film industry, like myself, dislike the skull/military/sectarian, in no means humble marketing/brand approach pretty much. This may feed some heavy-metal appreciating young male well, and a silent majority of red-users are standing this since years (WTF call a camera Weapon?), but for sure is scaring many potential customers away. Either way, Red's marketing is polarising, Arri's not.

So in the end there factor much more things in in a RED vs. Arri comparison than just resolution vs. size of photosites vs. colour rendition/sensitivity or physical size/weight of the body. Or the discussion about an OLED EVF.

Hans

 

[Brian Boyer]

No it's not. Red has its place, and a really solid one, but just not a relevance in the cinema and TV world like Arri has. In commercial land Red has clear advantages and still is widely used by a faithful user base. With Monstro, full frame and 8K there are many applications in the TVC market that make Red favourable. But in demanding hands of camera staff, in a fast pace, rough remote locations and technology hostile environments Arri cameras seem to perform better and more reliably. At least this is word of the street.

Colour wise I find Arri leading if we are talking about out-of-the-box picture quality. This headstart, however, dwindles when it comes to grading. Red's colour science of today is very good and in a ACES/linear grading setup on par with Arri's nice roll-offs and skin-tones. This is the reason why Panavision uses for its new camera Red's Monstro sensor (and partially probably the colour science). So doubtless, from this perspective, Red is a leading technology company for digital moving pictures cameras.

But the awkward, nerdy and pretty error-prone RAW workflow with its WYSIWYG traps bit many badly in the past and today (just check the numbers of threads dealing with 'noise') and is responsible for Red's questionable reputation in post land. On the other hand Arri managed to came off with an easy to understand and comprehensive RGB ProRes workflow based on LogC. And, thus, created a world-wide industry standard.

Lastly, many in the film industry, like myself, dislike the skull/military/sectarian, in no means humble marketing/brand approach pretty much. This may feed some heavy-metal appreciating young male well, and a silent majority of red-users are standing this since years (WTF call a camera Weapon?), but for sure is scaring many potential customers away. Either way, Red's marketing is polarising, Arri's not.

So in the end there factor much more things in in a RED vs. Arri comparison than just resolution vs. size of photosites vs. colour rendition/sensitivity or physical size/weight of the body. Or the discussion about an OLED EVF.

Hans

Whether you're right or wrong, these are all reasons why RED isn't getting that work. It doesn't explain why Sony, Canon and Panasonic aren't doing any better against the Alexa. That's what I've been trying to get at in this whole thread.

I know people think I've been talking about an arbitrary, pie-in-the-sky, unachievable and unnecessary camera feature, but I'm really mostly talking about psychology. Specifically, the psychology of why people choose Alexa for so many of those types of jobs.

Yes, I think I've narrowed it down to a technical aspect. But it's mainly how people responded to that technical aspect and how it affected their behaviors, whether they realized it or not. Now, there are other considerations like industry momentum, but that can change, given the right circumstances.

I mean, people gave the IBM analogy a couple of times in this thread but how many businesses are running their offices on IBM machines these days?