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 launch new Camera at IBC, Alexa Amira.

Brian F Kobylarz said:
Though not verified by a second source, I was just informed by a friend of mine that owns an ALEXA, that the AMIRA will have interchangeable lens mounts - including a B4 option.

As I said, not verified, but if true, anyone know a good marinade for crow meat?
Click to expand...

it is verified. It comes in all flavours, eng mount, pl mount and EF mount. I saw it on the official Amira presentation video, check the web, you'll find it.
 
"My early criticism is that they did not make this a 2/3" or S16 versus full sensor.
Most of the market for this camera would not be after shallow DOF. News for example, does not want blurred backgrounds. The reporter wants the fire or crime scene behind them in focus while they report the story. Do you really want to follow focus a basketball player dribbling down the court? Or following a cheetah knocking down it's prey?
Sometimes as much as possible in focus is desirable..."

This is where you are very wrong. I AM a news shooter, for over 25 years. The only news shooters that want a camera that keeps everything in focus are the ones that can't focus well.

We "good" news shooters like to shoot in a stylized way as much as possible, to separate from the rest. I have tried using F3, C300, F5 and f55 for news but they always came out short somewhere. To me, the Amira (not crazy about the name) looks like the Holly Grail.
 
Sorry Arri, I'd rather shoot with Sony's new 4K camcorder which records at 500 Mb and is 4K for $5000 . 2K is for the birds. I'm probably going to buy that camcorder and post examples comparing it directly against the MX sensor of my Epic. It's fun!
 
M Most said:
But having said that, I have to admit that in my experience, the camera choice, at least to the degree that it's made by the cameraman, has never been about post considerations, workflow or otherwise, beyond "how long will it take to copy this stuff" because that relates to making the day. Maybe your experience is different.
Click to expand...
I heard a lecture by a major-name DP at the ASC this past week where he lamented that more and more these days, cinematographers are being told what camera package they're going to be using for features and TV projects, ignoring their judgement. This guy told a sad story about doing two weeks of tests on different Kodak emulsions for a big-budget 2012 sci-fi film, then being told about six days prior to production, "oh, we've decided to shoot on Red." He protested as much as he could, but was forced to hit the ground running and do lots of tests to figure out how to get the best out of the Red Epic during production. The final shoot wound up looking fine, but the film itself was a big flop. Ultimately, the choice of camera format made no difference to the audience, to the critics, or to the accountants.

I think in TV, the producers have enough power that they dictate what camera the show will shoot on. Their inclination is going to just go with what works, what's most reliable, and what gives them the fewest headaches for post. In terms of dollars and cents, I think all cameras over $30,000 are all in the same ballpark for weekly rental; it's the lens packages and support gear that drive up the cost. I was just told by a friend of mine who went to IBC that Arri told him they're shipping Alexas as fast as they can build them, so for whatever reason, lots of people are choosing this camera. Resolution is not a factor for them.

I don't think file-copying speeds is an issue, but I've been on many sets where the DIT is the last person to leave for the day, because they're tied up dealing with camera files and sound files. I can see where this could be worse if they're dealing with huge files, but that's the price of doing business. My solution to that would be to use multiple people, and I'd also say it's not feasible to do everything on set and have it every shot logged, backed up, synced up, and color-corrected by wrap time, even shooting 1080.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I heard a lecture by a major-name DP at the ASC this past week where he lamented that more and more these days, cinematographers are being told what camera package they're going to be using for features and TV projects, ignoring their judgement. This guy told a sad story about doing two weeks of tests on different Kodak emulsions for a big-budget 2012 sci-fi film, then being told about six days prior to production, "oh, we've decided to shoot on Red." He protested as much as he could, but was forced to hit the ground running and do lots of tests to figure out how to get the best out of the Red Epic during production. The final shoot wound up looking fine, but the film itself was a big flop. Ultimately, the choice of camera format made no difference to the audience, to the critics, or to the accountants.

I think in TV, the producers have enough power that they dictate what camera the show will shoot on. Their inclination is going to just go with what works, what's most reliable, and what gives them the fewest headaches for post. In terms of dollars and cents, I think all cameras over $30,000 are all in the same ballpark for weekly rental; it's the lens packages and support gear that drive up the cost. I was just told by a friend of mine who went to IBC that Arri told him they're shipping Alexas as fast as they can build them, so for whatever reason, lots of people are choosing this camera. Resolution is not a factor for them.

I don't think file-copying speeds is an issue, but I've been on many sets where the DIT is the last person to leave for the day, because they're tied up dealing with camera files and sound files. I can see where this could be worse if they're dealing with huge files, but that's the price of doing business. My solution to that would be to use multiple people, and I'd also say it's not feasible to do everything on set and have it every shot logged, backed up, synced up, and color-corrected by wrap time, even shooting 1080.
Click to expand...


Although this is sadly true, the cinematographer himself might have the necessary persuasion abilities to be the one responsible for his camera choice. The only reason DP's might not get what they want, is budget. If what they want is more than what production has budgeted for or is willing to spend on a camera package, then he will always loose. But he then has two choices, either he accepts what production has to offer without moaning, or he can choose not to take the job.

So really, the DP is only fighting against budget and time (time, meaning more money). But having said that, DPs that already have a certain reputation that precedes them, in terms of work quality, ethics and respectability, producers will either give him what he asks for, or they can call someone else. There are plenty of (bad) producers that will make sure put their fingers everywhere, and a DP will either accept that intrusion, or he won't. A good producer, calls people that can do their jobs better than he can, and just sits back.

Producers are like everything else. There are very few good ones... those are the ones you want to work with...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T75q3kTFDuk
 
not sure

not sure

Lenny Manfred said:
"My early criticism is that they did not make this a 2/3" or S16 versus full sensor.
Most of the market for this camera would not be after shallow DOF. News for example, does not want blurred backgrounds. The reporter wants the fire or crime scene behind them in focus while they report the story. Do you really want to follow focus a basketball player dribbling down the court? Or following a cheetah knocking down it's prey?
Sometimes as much as possible in focus is desirable..."

This is where you are very wrong. I AM a news shooter, for over 25 years. The only news shooters that want a camera that keeps everything in focus are the ones that can't focus well.

We "good" news shooters like to shoot in a stylized way as much as possible, to separate from the rest. I have tried using F3, C300, F5 and f55 for news but they always came out short somewhere. To me, the Amira (not crazy about the name) looks like the Holly Grail.
Click to expand...

I agree with Lenny about docu-style shooting often desires more depth of field in many situations. And I wonder what Arri has in mind in regards because I believe I saw in the demo an ability to change mount to a 2/3" style lens, why would they do that if its only 35mm sensor size capable? (ie massive porthole).
 
Marc Wielage said:
I heard a lecture by a major-name DP at the ASC this past week where he lamented that more and more these days, cinematographers are being told what camera package they're going to be using for features and TV projects, ignoring their judgement. This guy told a sad story about doing two weeks of tests on different Kodak emulsions for a big-budget 2012 sci-fi film, then being told about six days prior to production, "oh, we've decided to shoot on Red." He protested as much as he could, but was forced to hit the ground running and do lots of tests to figure out how to get the best out of the Red Epic during production. The final shoot wound up looking fine, but the film itself was a big flop. Ultimately, the choice of camera format made no difference to the audience, to the critics, or to the accountants.

I think in TV, the producers have enough power that they dictate what camera the show will shoot on. Their inclination is going to just go with what works, what's most reliable, and what gives them the fewest headaches for post. In terms of dollars and cents, I think all cameras over $30,000 are all in the same ballpark for weekly rental; it's the lens packages and support gear that drive up the cost. I was just told by a friend of mine who went to IBC that Arri told him they're shipping Alexas as fast as they can build them, so for whatever reason, lots of people are choosing this camera. Resolution is not a factor for them.

I don't think file-copying speeds is an issue, but I've been on many sets where the DIT is the last person to leave for the day, because they're tied up dealing with camera files and sound files. I can see where this could be worse if they're dealing with huge files, but that's the price of doing business. My solution to that would be to use multiple people, and I'd also say it's not feasible to do everything on set and have it every shot logged, backed up, synced up, and color-corrected by wrap time, even shooting 1080.
Click to expand...

Marc makes very good points, the best camera (if there is such a thing) does not always win the job there are many factors that go into these decisions and the DP is rarely the last word anymore. As a DP myself when I am asked what Id prefer to use, I do diligence about the project to make my decision. Whats the budget, whats the final product, how much crew will I have, how fast will I be expected to work, what lenses will be needed, who is editing on what system and how fast is the turn around. Find the answers to these questions throw it in the hopper and out pops a camera choice, and I try hard not to place a personal preference overlay onto this process. Usually my choices come down to 3 cameras, Red Epic, Arri Alexa, or Sony F55 (sometimes C300). Anything else at lower rungs (like 5d) I try to shy away from the job.
 
Tom Jay Smith said:
Arri just announced their latest camera, the Alexa Amira.

http://www.definitionmagazine.com/storage/ibooks/ibc2013_digitaldaily1.pdf

Not 4K, just a docu camera... Interesting.
Click to expand...

The part I wonder about is the 4 year old sensor and will it be upgradeable when the next-gen technology overshadows this current sensor. (Ive asked Arri directly and one guy said "no upgrade path"). 4 years is a VERY long time in today's fast changing digital time line. Red has updated sensor at least twice in 4 years, Sony about the same, canon also new products every few years, how is it possible that Arri was so far ahead of the curve that they can introduce new products with the same 4 year old sensor? Even if what Arri wants us to believe ("4k is not needed, you cant tell the difference") what about newer sensor technology, with better color, more dynamic range, less noise, high (and lower) ASA.... when does Arri offer the latest sensor tech even if it is just 2k? I'm very hesitant to spend new money on a 4 year old sensor, feels like potential "soon to be obsolete" trap to me. I cant believe for a second that Arri does not have newer technology on their RD bench getting ready to offer in cameras whether its just 2k or 4-6k to compete in the higher-res market. Or ideally switchable as Sony has been able to achieve. Nobody knows where the market will be 2 years from now exactly, but at that point the Alexa/Amira sensor will be 6 years old and that's an extremely long time to still be cutting edge. Arri has done very well with Alexa, but newer tech is out-spec-ing Arri cameras these days, with Dragon and F55 doing things we only dreamed of a few years ago.
 
I own an arri alexa arri lt ..red epic....If you don't have the workflow...or rentals on these cameras...Arri is a system I think that is too expensive to buy into...my biggest profit so far has been from the arri lt
 
if that DP really wanted to shoot on film he should have pitched to the producer how much they would have save on post...going almost directly to dcp you're saving a fortune with film in post
 
I work a lot in the documentary TV/reality world (Discovery, History, Food, etc) and one thing is very apparent to me. The C300 is finding its way onto more and more of my shoots. Its a S35 sensor and we manage to shoot reality scenes with canon L series glass and wide open usually. They are relatively cheap and use inexpensive glass, while recording a broadcast standard codec. Our interviews look a million times better with the C300 than with the HDX 900s that we've been using for the last 10 years now. The DOF is what we always wanted. Shooting TV documentaries with a news camera never made sense to me, but its what we had at the time and we made it work. Only problem with the C300 is that it needs to built out with a million 3rd party accessories for it to be useable in our shooting environment. The image is great, but the ergonomics are terrible.

Finally, the Amira checks all the boxes for people who work on projects like I do. Its the perfect blend of the ENG camera and the cinema camera. It is now the "holy grail" of cable TV cameras. Everyone I know is talking about it. If you haven't noticed, there is a shit load of content being created for these cable networks and their affiliates. It a huge market that is just getting bigger. Arri is smart to go after this segment of the industry. The only potential hang up with the Amira is the price. I'm really hoping Arri hits the mark on this one. If they can sell it for $25K or less (unlikely) then I think they can really shake things up in the industry I work in. If its closer to $40K or $50K, I'm not sure where the market is for the Amira? We shall see.
 
dio Zafi said:
if that DP really wanted to shoot on film he should have pitched to the producer how much they would have save on post...going almost directly to dcp you're saving a fortune with film in post
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't understand what you just said.
 
Clint Lealos said:
I work a lot in the documentary TV/reality world (Discovery, History, Food, etc) and one thing is very apparent to me. The C300 is finding its way onto more and more of my shoots. Its a S35 sensor and we manage to shoot reality scenes with canon L series glass and wide open usually. They are relatively cheap and use inexpensive glass, while recording a broadcast standard codec. Our interviews look a million times better with the C300 than with the HDX 900s that we've been using for the last 10 years now. The DOF is what we always wanted. Shooting TV documentaries with a news camera never made sense to me, but its what we had at the time and we made it work. Only problem with the C300 is that it needs to built out with a million 3rd party accessories for it to be useable in our shooting environment. The image is great, but the ergonomics are terrible.

Finally, the Amira checks all the boxes for people who work on projects like I do. Its the perfect blend of the ENG camera and the cinema camera. It is now the "holy grail" of cable TV cameras. Everyone I know is talking about it. If you haven't noticed, there is a shit load of content being created for these cable networks and their affiliates. It a huge market that is just getting bigger. Arri is smart to go after this segment of the industry. The only potential hang up with the Amira is the price. I'm really hoping Arri hits the mark on this one. If they can sell it for $25K or less (unlikely) then I think they can really shake things up in the industry I work in. If its closer to $40K or $50K, I'm not sure where the market is for the Amira? We shall see.
Click to expand...

Agreed the need for everything you mentioned. I hear the price will be close to 50k, this from a Arri rep. But who knows... if they hear enough of this kind of response maybe they have wiggle room before price announce.
 
I can understand the value of smaller 16mm & 2/3" sized sensors for documentary work -- sometimes when I see a reality show shot on a 35mm sensor camera like the C300, it looks rather stylized with its super shallow focus -- it's certainly pretty, and works great for talking heads to isolate them, but it doesn't do a lot to show the reality of the space around people, and the focus can look so hit or miss. If I were doing a Frederick Wiseman or Ricky Leacock style documentary, I think a bit deeper focus and a smaller camera with lighter, smaller lenses on it would be of more value than a large sensor with shallow focus, unless I were shooting under incredibly dim light levels where the sensitivity of the large sensor would outweigh all the disadvantages.
 
Erich Roland said:
Ive asked Arri directly and one guy said "no upgrade path".
Click to expand...

I guess, it may be the time to define what is an "upgrade".
Putting the upgrade economics aside, when you upgrade the Red camera, like Red One to MX or Epic to Dragon, you end up replacing the sensor and majority of the underlying electronics. What are you left with from the old camera? Mostly the shell with few other bits and pieces and a serial number. Some manufacturers may feel it's not worth it...
 
editor at post house

editor at post house

Matt W. said:
Don't worry about it. No competent producer would, either.
Click to expand...


matt

talk to editors at busy post houses in LA (this is what they told me)...the small cost of post work on film shoots is saving a lot of money for producers..
 
dio Zafi said:
matt

talk to editors at busy post houses in LA (this is what they told me)...the small cost of post work on film shoots is saving a lot of money for producers..
Click to expand...

Can you explain in your own words what do you mean, rather than saying "this is what they told me"...
And since when the editors are the arbiters of the ease of the post workflow?
 
jake blackstone said:
I guess, it may be the time to define what is an "upgrade".
Putting the upgrade economics aside, when you upgrade the Red camera, like Red One to MX or Epic to Dragon, you end up replacing the sensor and majority of the underlying electronics. What are you left with from the old camera? Mostly the shell with few other bits and pieces and a serial number. Some manufacturers may feel it's not worth it...
Click to expand...

That's exactly what the Arri rep said, the cost to change a sensor would make it prohibitively expensive. But somehow Red has manged to offer this Dragon upgrade because they designed the ability into the original camera design and not an after thought... where it would indeed cost maybe more then makes any sense. Just a different philosophy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top