Arri Rumor

[Tom Lowe]

The Compact Primes; as much as some people may find them novel, are a complete and total commercial failure.

Well that's because Jim has not released his FF35 Epic yet! :wink5:

 

[Jannard]

We need to be respectful here. There are a lot of good posts and comments but it can't get out of hand.

Jim

 

[David Mullen ASC]

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.

So I guess "Avatar" is screwed?

Honestly, have you spent a lot of time looking at 2K and 4K film-outs and projection in D.I. suites? Because the visual difference is not as striking as SD versus HD.

Almost every movie out in a theater right now was finished in 2K. Do you really think that in two years, you couldn't even show a movie like "Up in the Air" or "It's Complicated" because they aren't 4K in resolution? No one is ever going to watch "Wall-E" or "Up" or "The Incredibles" in two years because those movies were finished in 2K? That even though these movies look fine today, in two years, everyone will now think they look unacceptable? That no one is going to look at the "Lord of the Rings" movies in two years because they were finished in 2K?

Considering 90% of movies were finished at 2K in 2009, do you really think that every D.I. company in the world is going to switch to all-4K mastering in 2010? I mean, by your logic, any movie finishing post in 2010 and 2011 in 2K is basically unsellable. I see no evidence that this is going to happen, even if 4K becomes more and more common.

What is clear is that we live and work in a world of multiple resolution standards and delivery requirements. And I see no evidence that that situation is going to change even if we introduce higher resolutions for higher profile projects. Two years from now, three years from now, you're still going to see movies made worldwide being finished to 2K. Maybe not a Hollywood blockbuster, but smaller movies are still going to make compromises for budgetary reasons and opt to finish in lower resolution formats.

Again, we have the case of "Avatar" shot in 1080P, finished to 2K, making a billion dollars worldwide -- that sort of success doesn't impress upon studio heads that the secret ingredient was 4K, since that wasn't a 4K movie.

 

[Phil Jordan]

I apologize for the last post that was deleted. But David do you really believe that James Cameron would have shot Avatar on 1080P if he started it today?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't know - Cameron has been fairly vocal about HD & 2K being sharp enough for theatrical presentation, and that he'd rather see a 48 fps 2K standard than a 24 fps 4K standard.

When 24P HD first came out and he was using it for "Ghosts of the Abyss" he was making claims that it was more like 65mm resolution than 35mm resolution. I had a hard time taking that seriously.

So I can't honestly say what Cameron thinks about whether he would have shot "Avatar" today at a higher resolution -- with all the action and fast motion in his movies, I can see why he'd think there would be more improvement by raising the frame rate rather than the resolution.

People can change their minds over the years about many things, like film versus digital. And resolution. But also remember that the sharp decade of large format movies in the late 1950's, early 1960's was replaced by the fog-filtered, zoom-lensed movies of the 1970's, so trends are not always upwards in terms of resolution standards.

 

[jonnycom]

Yes he would still shoot 1080p because he knows the he could never have the renders done before 2015 in 4k. Do you think the movie would make 1 dollar more if he shot 4k?

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

Again, we have the case of "Avatar" shot in 1080P, finished to 2K, making a billion dollars worldwide -- that sort of success doesn't impress upon studio heads that the secret ingredient was 4K, since that wasn't a 4K movie.

It's not about today that i'm concerned about, it's about tomorrow.
Studios are going to make alot of money re-releasing onto bluray.
Same is going to happen when 4k comes to the home. Since 4k
is here now, it makes sense to future proof your source material
so that you can take advantage of re-issues in the future.

The financial incentive to maximize the return on a production is huge.

 

[Grady Wilson]

David. Would you shoot a movie ( that you planned to market ) today on an SD digital camera? That is a serious question I ask you to take in perspective.

In a few years, when the consumer market is saturated by 4k displays and projectors, it will be a very different game than it is today. I feel very confident shooting 4k right now as an acquisition, as it guarantees when the studios start calling for 4k deliverables, I will have a nice catalog that is ready. Just like when HD was hitting its stride.

It was incredibly easy to sell HD content at the beginning of that 1080 wave, and I have a feeling 4k will be just as easy.

 

[Phil Jordan]

I don't know - Cameron has been fairly vocal about HD & 2K being sharp enough for theatrical presentation, and that he'd rather see a 48 fps 2K standard than a 24 fps 4K standard.

When 24P HD first came out and he was using it for "Ghosts of the Abyss" he was making claims that it was more like 65mm resolution than 35mm resolution. I had a hard time taking that seriously.

So I can't honestly say what Cameron thinks about whether he would have shot "Avatar" today at a higher resolution -- with all the action and fast motion in his movies, I can see why he'd think there would be more improvement by raising the frame rate rather than the resolution.

People can change their minds over the years about many things, like film versus digital. And resolution. But also remember that the sharp decade of large format movies in the late 1950's, early 1960's was replaced by the fog-filtered, zoom-lensed movies of the 1970's, so trends are not always upwards in terms of resolution standards.

I guess the question begs to be asked if he would have shot 4K at 48fps or 5K at 48fps, which he could do with Epic.

My big issue with Arri that started this thread is the fact that they are selling a 2K finish camera when they have a secret 3K camera waiting in the wings. That is what really is bugging me.

 

[Lucas Wilson]

I apologize for the last post that was deleted. But David do you really believe that James Cameron would have shot Avatar on 1080P if he started it today?

Cameron is on record over and over and over again for temporal resolution being far more important than pixel resolution.

He will go for whatever will give him the best temporal resolution. If there are cameras at the time that do 120fps at 2K and 60fps at 4K... he will go for 2K.

Lucas

 

[Tom Lowe]

It's not about today that i'm concerned about, it's about tomorrow.
Studios are going to make alot of money re-releasing onto bluray.
Same is going to happen when 4k comes to the home. Since 4k
is here now, it makes sense to future proof your source material
so that you can take advantage of re-issues in the future.

The financial incentive to maximize the return on a production is huge.

Carsten, then why are you buying an Arri camera? Buy an Epic from Jim instead!

 

[Tom Lowe]

I guess the question begs to be asked if he would have shot 4K at 48fps or 5K at 48fps, which he could do with Epic.

My big issue with Arri that started this thread is the fact that they are selling a 2K finish camera when they have a secret 3K camera waiting in the wings. That is what really is bugging me.

3K is not even a finishing format.

1080p, 2K and 4K are the finishing formats. Or maybe Quad HD, I guess.

 

[Phil Jordan]

3K is not even a finishing format.

1080p, 2K and 4K are the finishing formats. Or maybe Quad HD, I guess.

3K is not a finishing format that is true. But 4K bayer is a true 3K. That's what I was referring to.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

Carsten, then why are you buying an Arri camera? Buy an Epic from Jim instead!

Like I said, I'm an Arri fanboy and I grew up buying and using Arri for the last 20 years. That's hard to let go. I bought a Red One already but Arri is like that old girlfriend you still want keep shagging.

 

[Phil Jordan]

Here is the real point. Arri is selling the 3 models of 2K cameras to customers and shipping this summer. They have a 4K bayer camera that they are going to announce in September. That just doesn't seem fair to their customers. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Carsten Fenstermacher]

My big issue with Arri that started this thread is the fact that they are selling a 2K finish camera when they have a secret 3K camera waiting in the wings. That is what really is bugging me.

That's what's bugging me also.

I just heard more info about this whole thing from another colleague. (i had to swear not to repeat because it could be traced back to him)

I'm even more confused now by the direction Arri is going in. I sincerely hope they stop and take the time to release a camera for tomorrow and not just good enough for today.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Here is the real point. Arri is selling the 3 models of 2K cameras to customers and shipping this summer. They have a 4K camera that they are going to announce in September. That just doesn't seem fair to their customers. That's all I'm saying.

Yeah, but you have to keep all this in perspective -- all of these are 2K cameras! Since 3K is not a finishing format, all of these will finish at 2K, presumably. So the difference between 3.5K and 4K is not very significant! You have to get up to 5K or 6K Bayer before you can make the jump to a clean 4K finish.

 

[Phil Jordan]

Yeah, but you have to keep all this in perspective -- all of these are 2K cameras! Since 3K is not a finishing format, all of these will finish at 2K, presumably. So the difference between 3.5K and 4K is not very significant! You have to get up to 5K or 6K Bayer before you can make the jump to a clean 4K finish.

Tom tell me you wouldn't be pissed off if you bought the 2K model only to find out the 4K bayer model was announced 3 months after you took delivery.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Tom tell me you wouldn't be pissed off if you bought the 2K model only to find out the 4K bayer model was announced 3 months after you took delivery.

Yeah, but Phil, aren't we actually talking about a 3.5K Bayer camera and then a 4K Bayer camera? That is a small amount of resolution gain... not enough to really change much. Both cameras will finish at 2K, probably.

 

[Phil Jordan]

Yeah, but Phil, aren't we actually talking about a 3.5K Bayer camera and then a 4K Bayer camera? That is a small amount of resolution gain... not enough to really change much. Both cameras will finish at 2K, probably.

I'd still be pissed.