Arri Rumor

[Tom Lowe]

What David is trying to say is that 1080p cameras are still dominating the market, and if Arri comes strong with dynamic range and other nice capabilities, they can do just fine with these new cameras coming out this year.

What does not make sense, as he is explaining, is moving from a 3.5K Bayer sensor to a 4K Bayer sensor a few months later. That's just nonsense. Arri's next move will be to a 5K or 6K Bayer sensor, or to some other kind that produces pristine 4K FINISHES.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

Because 90% of all features are finished to 2K, and the highest any TV show goes is 1.9K (1080P), that's why.

If I'm buying the Alexa now, it's going to take me 2-3 years to pay it back. If 90% percent are finished in 2k now, I still want a camera that's not going to be obsolete in 2 years just as I'm breaking even.

There's also a strong push from the financiers/studios we've dealt with to be able to reissue at 4k a few years. They want to know they will be able to maximize their ROI with 4k in the future. Even if they still post in 2k now, they're already transitioning their projects in expection for 4k source master.

I'm in the Chris Nolan camp... even if we're getting 1k from a film print now, I want as big a neg as I can get because it matters! 4k or more as uprezzing 2k won't cut it.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

For one thing, you can uprez HD and 2K to 4K -- it's simply softer than 4K material. Sure, if something was originated in a format capable of 4K resolution, it should be mastered in that format, but that doesn't mean there is no market for lower resolution material. We have a decade of movies in 2K now -- what, no one is ever going to watch them once we have 4K delivery and projection?

And again, WHAT ABOUT AVATAR? That movie was bumped up from HD to IMAX for god's sake, and people seem to be going to the movie theaters to see it even though it is not 4K resolution. Are you saying that once 4K delivery and projection is available, no one is going to rewatch "Avatar" in 4K because it's originated in 2K, even though they are willing to watch it in IMAX today, which is even more of an uprezzing than 2K to 4K?

And finally, there are many more hours of dramatic television shot worldwide every day compared to features that does not need to master to 4K. Everyone here is so theatrical feature film centric, they forget this. Shows like "CSI", "NCIS", "Vampire Diaries", whatever, do not need to be mastered to 4K. (Not to mention commercials for those shows.) And there is a market for cameras to shoot these shows that Panavision, ARRI, RED, etc. can and do supply.

Again, the production market is big enough to support more than one resolution.

Either that, or you guys think that James Cameron was some sort of idiot not to future-proof "Avatar" for 4K. If so, he's one rich idiot...

Look I'm all for more resolution, but let's get real about assessing the state of the industry and its needs.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

What David is trying to say is that 1080p cameras are still dominating the market, and if Arri comes strong with dynamic range and other nice capabilities, they can do just fine with these new cameras coming out this year.

Yes, but going with the status quo is not going to make my purchase in Alexa last 5 years. When everyone else is shooting 4k and 5k (and then 6k or 9k), how do I make sure I make sure my camera continues to pay for it self.

I'm quite sad. I was quite looking forward to these cameras as owner/op but this turns me off.

 

[Phil Jordan]

I don't get the point of spreading this rumor.

This is not a rumor. My friend was there. He did not dream this up.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

For one thing, you can uprez HD and 2K to 4K -- it's simply softer than 4K material. Sure, if something was originated in a format capable of 4K resolution, it should be mastered in that format, but that doesn't mean there is no market for lower resolution material. We have a decade of movies in 2K now -- what, no one is ever going to watch them once we have 4K delivery and projection?

And again, WHAT ABOUT AVATAR? That movie was bumped up from HD to IMAX for god's sake, and people seem to be going to the movie theaters to see it even though it is not 4K resolution. Are you saying that once 4K delivery and projection is available, no one is going to rewatch "Avatar" in 4K because it's originated in 2K, even though they are willing to watch it in IMAX today, which is even more of an uprezzing than 2K to 4K?

And finally, there are many more hours of dramatic television shot worldwide every day compared to features that does not need to master to 4K. Everyone here is so theatrical feature film centric, they forget this. Shows like "CSI", "NCIS", "Vampire Diaries", whatever, do not need to be mastered to 4K. And there is a market for cameras to shoot these shows that Panavision, ARRI, RED, etc. can and do supply.

Again, the production market is big enough to support more than one resolution.

Either that, or you guys think that James Cameron was some sort of idiot not to future-proof "Avatar" for 4K. If so, he's one rich idiot...

Would you uprez SD to 1080P and call it HD? You can but it's not the same.
Would you tell Chris Nolan to shoot HD because the uprez to IMAX looks fine?

Avatar on IMAX looks horribly soft compared to any other IMAX 3D I've watched. I was not impressed.

All I want is for Arri to do it right and go straight for 4k. I see nothing wrong with asking for that. 3k is just not very forward thinking.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I'm in the Chris Nolan camp... even if we're getting 1k from a film print now, I want as big a neg as I can get because it matters! 4k or more as uprezzing 2k won't cut it.

That's fine to be in the Chris Nolan camp, or the David Lean camp for that matter. Just realize that 90% of the filmmakers, producers, and studio heads out there are not in the Chris Nolan or David Lean camp, whether or not they should be. Besides, does the next Meryl Streep / Amy Adams romantic comedy really need to resolve 4K? Does the next Adam Sandler movie? Does the next indie kitchen sink handheld life-on-the-streets movie? Do small films like "Up in the Air" or "Juno" really need to have the same resolution as a "Batman" movie? I just saw "The White Ribbon" and wasn't particularly feeling that it simply wasn't high enough in resolution.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Yes, but going with the status quo is not going to make my purchase in Alexa last 5 years. When everyone else is shooting 4k and 5k (and then 6k or 9k), how do I make sure I make sure my camera continues to pay for it self.

I'm quite sad. I was quite looking forward to these cameras as owner/op but this turns me off.

Well the DR of these Arris is said to be superb, so you can buy your Arri, spend a year shooting great stuff on it, earn yourself $50K, then sell your Arri and buy a Red FF35 Epic when it comes out. Think positive for godsake!

 

[Phil Jordan]

Either that, or you guys think that James Cameron was some sort of idiot not to future-proof "Avatar" for 4K. If so, he's one rich idiot...

I don't think there were 4K alternatives when Cameron started Avatar or he would have considered them because he is not an idiot.

 

[Phil Jordan]

An idiot is someone who buys an Arri 2K finish camera when the 3K finish camera is just about to be released.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

All I want is for Arri to do it right and go straight for 4k. I see nothing wrong with asking for that. 3k is just not very forward thinking.

Then don't buy their products, it's that simple! Buy the 5K Red cameras instead. But don't confuse your buying preferences with every other potential buyer out there.

Resolution is only one factor in image quality and in what drives you to buy a particular camera.

Sure, I also would prefer we move beyond 2K mastering, and I think ARRI should make a 5K RAW camera instead of a 3.5K RAW camera. I also think that 4K should be the goal for feature film mastering. But I'm not so arrogant to think that what I want is what everyone does or should want.

And when the 3.5K ARRI cameras come out and the 5K EPIC comes out, I'm sure plenty of people will shoot tests and decide for themselves what they like.

Remember that the perception of sharpness is more than simply the number of pixels an image has, or a sensor. There is a whole slew of factors that come into play. So you can't be sure that the sharpness of these ARRI 3.5K cameras won't be acceptably high enough for decent theatrical images.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

That's fine to be in the Chris Nolan camp, or the David Lean camp for that matter. Just realize that 90% of the filmmakers, producers, and studio heads out there are not in the Chris Nolan or David Lean camp, whether or not they should be. Besides, does the next Meryl Streep / Amy Adams romantic comedy really need to resolve 4K? Does the next Adam Sandler movie? Does the next indie kitchen sink handheld life-on-the-streets movie? Do small films like "Up in the Air" or "Juno" really need to have the same resolution as a "Batman" movie? I just saw "The White Ribbon" and wasn't particularly feeling that it simply wasn't high enough in resolution.

This is the same case we heard during the transition to HD for TV shows.
It's not necessarily about what looks 'ok' now but the longevity of what you shoot. All the TV shows shot in film have wonderful ability to pull out HD and higher. We can now expect the same from digital and as a shooting format, it's surprising that Arri is not providing both superior latitude and resolution.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

Well the DR of these Arris is said to be superb, so you can buy your Arri, spend a year shooting great stuff on it, earn yourself $50K, then sell your Arri and buy a Red FF35 Epic when it comes out. Think positive for godsake!

I guess I just got depressed as Arri is a long time favorite of mine. I want to see them not get crushed.

The low end camera which starts to make sense financially, only shoots HD for output. No raw or full 3392 x 2200.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

Then don't buy their products, it's that simple! Buy the 5K Red cameras instead. But don't confuse your buying preferences with every other potential buyer out there.

Sure, I also would prefer we move beyond 2K mastering, and I think ARRI should make a 5K RAW camera instead of a 3.5K RAW camera. I also think that 4K should be the goal for feature film mastering. But I'm not so arrogant to think that what I want is what everyone does or should want.

True, but Arri is has always been premiere in all aspects. This make their new cameras seem average. I guess I'm a disappointed Arri fanboy.

 

[Jannard]

OK folks... calm down. Arri is a great company and provides a good alternative for your shooting pleasure. There are several ways to skin the cat. We believe in 5K bayer = 4K measured resolution with high ISO capability and DR (EPIC). This is the RED site in case you forgot. Arri is releasing a 3.5K = 2K finish camera this summer and maybe a 4K = 3K finish camera later this year. Great choices for all. What remains to be seen are how the two companies deliver on DR and ISO capability. We'll see. In the meantime, please keep the posts respectful and productive.

Jim

 

[David Mullen ASC]

You're not really listening to what I'm saying Carsten. Sure, ideally everything ever shot would have higher resolution than anyone can imagine they'll ever need just in case. There's the ideal situation... and then there's the real world of compromise. There's the real world where you can't even afford to buy or rent the sharpest lenses for your super high resolution camera. There's the real world where you shoot in a higher resolution format but only can afford to master in a lower resolution format, under the notion that someday someone will spend the money to remaster your movie -- and guess what, sometimes they don't spend the money.

And beyond all that, there is also artistic intent. You put a #1/4 ProMist on your lens because that's the look you feel that the movie needs, and your 4K camera may only be resolving 2K. Everytime your focus puller misses the focus by a slight amount, your resolution drops. Everytime you switch from a prime to a zoom, the resolution may drop.

I'm not arguing for a lowering of standards, or against the raising of standards. I'm just trying to explain where we are today and why, good or bad. And we make movies for today, even though we hope that people in the future will watch them again. And often we make compromises to get that movie made today, even if we may regret those compromises in the future. Because sometimes it's better to get the movie made, compromised, than to not make it at all because you are unwilling to lower your standards.

Yes, I also think that ARRI should go straight to a 5K RAW camera for a 4K finish. But I also understand the logic of making a camera that creates a great image for how movies are made and posted this year and for the next few years. ARRI is a very practical company. I once had an argument with one of their engineers because he didn't want to support anamorphic photography, he thought all movies should be shot in Super-35. And he had a lot of technical reasons why spherical photography was better than anamorphic photography. And from his point of view, he was right, and there are a lot of technical and artistic people who would agree with him. But I like anamorphic photography and I felt that the larger negative area was an advantage over Super-35 cropped to 2.40 despite the fact that the spherical lenses are sharper.

ARRI folks are very bright, very level-headed, very practical. They make things that work, and work well. Sometimes that level-headedness makes them a bit limited in the whole vision thing, but it serves them well. This is a company that is still owned by the Arnold and Richter families for almost a century I believe. So I respect their reasons for doing things even when I don't always agree with them.

 

[Phil Jordan]

You're not really listening to what I'm saying Carsten. Sure, ideally everything ever shot would have higher resolution than anyone can imagine they'll ever need just in case. There's the ideal situation... and then there's the real world of compromise. There's the real world where you can't even afford to buy or rent the sharpest lenses for your super high resolution camera. There's the real world where you shoot in a higher resolution format but only can afford to master in a lower resolution format, under the notion that someday someone will spend the money to remaster your movie -- and guess what, sometimes they don't spend the money.

And beyond all that, there is also artistic intent. You put a #1/4 ProMist on your lens because that's the look you feel that the movie needs, and your 4K camera may only be resolving 2K. Everytime your focus puller misses the focus by a slight amount, your resolution drops. Everytime you switch from a prime to a zoom, the resolution may drop.

I'm not arguing for a lowering of standards, or against the raising of standards. I'm just trying to explain where we are today and why, good or bad. And we make movies for today, even though we hope that people in the future will watch them again. And often we make compromises to get that movie made today, even if we may regret those compromises in the future. Because sometimes it's better to get the movie made, compromised, than to not make it at all because you are unwilling to lower your standards.

Yes, I also think that ARRI should go straight to a 5K RAW camera for a 4K finish. But I also understand the logic of making a camera that creates a great image for how movies are made and posted this year and for the next few years. ARRI is a very practical company. I once had an argument with one of their engineers because he didn't want to support anamorphic photography, he thought all movies should be shot in Super-35. And he had a lot of technical reasons why spherical photography was better than anamorphic photography. And from his point of view, he was right, and there are a lot of technical and artistic people who would agree with him. But I like anamorphic photography and I felt that the larger negative area was an advantage over Super-35 cropped to 2.40 despite the fact that the spherical lenses are sharper.

ARRI folks are very bright, very level-headed, very practical. They make things that work, and work well. Sometimes that level-headedness makes them a bit limited in the whole vision thing, but it serves them well. This is a company that is still owned by the Arnold and Richter families for almost a century I believe. So I respect their reasons for doing things even when I don't always agree with them.

David, you have to admit that Red is pushing all the other companies to step up to the plate. What I don't get is why they do what Red did, or less, and not what Red is going to do.

 

[Grady Wilson]

Uprez 2k to 4k? I can't believe that someone just suggest that was viable. I remember silly producers tried to do that when HD was becoming popular, shooting on SD cameras and using software to uprez to fake HD. The studios are not dumb, it is pretty obvious, and even some of the early HD labeled cameras were rejected. ( happened to me once with JVC footage )

There is no question 4k is the future. Studios will demand it. As of right now, if you shoot 1080 or even 2k, in a year or two you are going to find yourself in the same camp as trying to sell a movie shot on SD today; and that isn't a very good camp to be in.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Everyone is pushing everyone else. I'm sure that the whole DSLR video movement is affecting decisions at other companies. RED is clearly having an impact on ARRI, Sony, etc.

The thing is that it's not just a specs game, who has the biggest sensor, the most pixels, etc. There are a lot of other factors that affect buying decisions. Sometimes you compete with another company not by offering nearly the same camera but either with better specs or lower prices, but you decide not to play in the same sandbox or you appeal to a different customer base by differentiating your product in some other way.

 

[Grady Wilson]

ARRI folks are very bright, very level-headed, very practical. They make things that work, and work well. Sometimes that level-headedness makes them a bit limited in the whole vision thing, but it serves them well. This is a company that is still owned by the Arnold and Richter families for almost a century I believe. So I respect their reasons for doing things even when I don't always agree with them.

In case you didn't know Arri is a bit of a disaster right now internally, level headed is the last word I would ever use to explain the two families. But that put aside, I would still disagree with you that they don't make mistakes; The Compact Primes; as much as some people may find them novel, are a complete and total commercial failure.