Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 Rumor

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jeff Coatney said:
I don't have to substantiate it, its Prima facie. Has Kodak introduced any single pass HDR raw stocks that I'm not aware of?
Click to expand...

Hi Jeff,

I am not sure there is a market for stocks with any more DR. I prefer stocks with a look, not flat ones to be fixed in post.

Best

Stephen
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Ha ha heh heeeh heeeehh this would't tell us even a sort of any Kodak former executive...

Simply it's not a statement, it's a bluff...it's a state of mind that is more in a way of wrong, crazy or obsolete...

btw, you can't get the best of film just because you do not know what it is the best for that option

or just because you are totally out of any dissent film processing in way you are thinking about it right now.

The most of commercials done on a film

(here in Europe and I think that even more in US also forget the rest of the World)

are simply just not any of Hollywood quality 2K/4K,...

because the Hollywood commercials are mostly done with a digital, HD the latest 2K,

but no RED 4K or film scan 4K commercials still would dominate theaters...

This all up to totally another way of thinking but not that this fuck'n'bad scanned film is somehow superior to digital...

Sorry but I saw some of that similar things that were overpaid in theater cinema recently...

SOON THE GAME OVER!!!!

HAHAAH HEHE HHHHEHEHEHE!!!!!!!!!!

Stephen, you must be really in a zig-zag sort of crazy drive situation daily...!!!????

Ha ha he heeh heeeehhh heeeeeh heh....hilarious...
Click to expand...


???
 
As Jim said early in this conversation, Arri is not dumb, they know what they are doing but they are also a big business and is stuck being a big company and having all the drag behind it. They will catch up but its gonna take a while. Imagine RED is a group of five or so elite super snipers and Arri is an Army, they both are formidable opponents but Arri is a lot slower but have tons more resources at hand where RED takes every opportunity at hand and makes the best of their small numbers and high skill. And I'm getting some popcorn cause I'm ready to watch this battle. :tongue:
 
ever tried typing in a straight jacket with your nose? it's hard! :D
gosh, i can't escape him even when he's on my ignore list because others quote his entire posts.
 
Robert Craig said:
As Jim said early in this conversation, Arri is not dumb, they know what they are doing but they are also a big business and is stuck being a big company and having all the drag behind it. They will catch up but its gonna take a while. Imagine RED is a group of five or so elite super snipers and Arri is an Army, they both are formidable opponents but Arri is a lot slower but have tons more resources at hand where RED takes every opportunity at hand and makes the best of their small numbers and high skill. And I'm getting some popcorn cause I'm ready to watch this battle. :tongue:
Click to expand...

arri is not an army, they arent that big in numbers, jim jannard could buy arri :)
canon and sony are the big fat armies, but i guess s35 world isnt profitable enough for them, yet.


red is like the A-Team, dont know if graeme or jarred is Mr.T and i forget which one of the A-team smokes cigars too :)
 
Just to chime in (not that I disagree with anything in particular)...

"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."

Isn't Avatar 2k PER EYE? Being 3D, it's actually double the 2K, no?
 
Stephen Williams said:
Excuse me but MX not yet on sale and there has been talk of Monstro its replacement for more than a year now. With future proofing in mind 35mm film still would seem like a good option.
Click to expand...


RED is obviously a different story as they announced their roadmap. I don't see Monstro making MX obsolete and I certainly don't think Red users will change cameras like socks.




Things I'm having trouble understanding in this thread:

- What makes it so surprising if company like Arri also has its r&d department on new projects. Why the "eyes wide open" on this thought like it's something illogical?

- Why would Arri's new high end digital camera (let's say 4K finishing one) make 2K finishing ones obsolete ? They *probably* won't be nearly in the same price range. Also, even in highest budgets 2K look might be a creative choice. What makes it so strange for Arri to just expand their product range?

- Why would "good enough for some" have to keep one of the best camera makers in the world from developing even better digital cameras ? Won't the highest budgets like the offer of "even better" than "good enough" ?

- Why would a high end camera have to match current broadcast standards and comply with current limitations ?

- What about "cinema experience" ? Home entertainment systems these days are pretty good. I really don't see 2K digital projection staying long in cinemas. Kids today are already playing games on 2560 x 1600 at home. With ATI Eyefinity technology you can bump the resolution quite a bit. I tried 3D gaming and "pretty good" is an understatement. 2K motion imaging ? Soon enters 2/3" affordable Scarlet for huge market. Studios will want to keep "the edge".

4K digital cinema being around the corner and Arri expanding offer to 4K acquisition at some time - both seem pretty logical.
 
Joe G. said:
Just to chime in (not that I disagree with anything in particular)...

"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."

Isn't Avatar 2k PER EYE? Being 3D, it's actually double the 2K, no?
Click to expand...

i think it's supposed to be like 1.5x resolution. Can anyone confirm that?
 
Hrvoje Simic said:
I don't see Monstro making MX obsolete and I certainly don't think Red users will change cameras like socks.
.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Really MX seems to be making M obsolete and many people are talking about upgrading RED One to an EPIC. Monsto is supposed to have a greater DR than MX, FF35 as well. Looks like cameras / sensors will have a 2-3 year life cycle.

Stephen
 
Tom L said:
i think it's supposed to be like 1.5x resolution. Can anyone confirm that?
Click to expand...

Hi Tom,

I don't have binocular vision, I use one eye or the other. I don't see any increase in resolution or any benefit from 3D myself, I am not the only one!

Stephen
 
I think a lot of RED fannisism (ya I made that up) its blinding logic on this thread. David Mullen ASC is an excellent cinematographer who in my opinion deserves a lot more respect and regard here. He knows what he is talking about.

In the end doesn't it really all boil down to perceptions and the economy. If not most of us would be planning on shooting S16, 35, and S35 with reliable cameras that have been around for more than a decade (35BL4S, 535A, Moviecam Compact, Aaton XTR PROD, SR3, etc) that have paid for themselves 20 fold. We wouldn't be looking at a digital camera that has a 2-4 year shelf life till the next best thing makes it worth $2500 on ebay.
 
I actually think avatar befitted from the lower resolution. I know a fair amount of people who have seen it many times not due to their love for the story but in attempts to see if it will be show better at the next theater. I believe this is just another part of the genius of Cameran's marketing and timing, if they move had come out in an established 3D market I don't think it would have done the same (]especially if it looked the same projected across all theaters with only differences in sizes.)

Just because theaters are projecting 4k to me doesn't mean a direct move into home use (though I think it will eventually). People have been seeing far better looking movies resolution frame rate, all around in the theaters for years. Maybe the push to a higher digital projection will give that edge back to the theaters and get more people in them (I know the market was great this year but still).

honestly I didn't buy into blue ray, I'm 24 with over 200 movies on DVD, I wish I could update my collection, but financially it doesn't work out, the funny thing is I don't want them for the resolution just the special features and commentaries.

Arri makes great cameras always has, always will, heck I learned to film on a 30 year old camera that worked wonderfully.
 
Stephen Williams said:
Hi Tom,

I don't have binocular vision, I use one eye or the other. I don't see any increase in resolution or any benefit from 3D myself, I am not the only one!

Stephen
Click to expand...

A friend of mine who shot a big 3D film a few years ago mentioned to me that 3D has something like 1.5 times "perceived" resolution, or something like that. I'm not sure about the details though, so I could be wrong.
 
rodbradley said:
I think equating the jump from SD to HD (both with their many flavors and range of quality) to an equal "seeing the difference" from HD to 4K will not be as significant for as many people. At a certain point there is enough quality to satisfy most people -- just as most people don't need a car that goes over 90mph.

.
Click to expand...

Going from NTSC to HD actually involves a number of separate technical steps, all of which make a significant improvement.

First of all, even if you're just adding a Set-Top box to your existing TV, you're going from analog NTSC reception complete with ghosting, electrical and RF interference, to Digital reception, which eliminates all of that in one swoop. Even feeding the digital signal into the same TV through an NTSC RF modulator instead of off-air or from the average analog cable system, is still likely to yield a significant improvement for most viewers.

But if your TV has AV inputs, you can bypass the RF modulator and tuner and get better (NTSC) results again.

OR if your TV has component or S-Video inputs, you can go another step up the quality chain by eliminating the NTSC color subcarrier artifacts.

And if your TV has a progressive scan function and your Set-Top Box allows progressive output, then you also can eliminate interlace artifacts, almost doubling your useable vertical resoultion.

So, by simply taking advantage of SD digital transmission, chances are you're already doing a pretty substantial upgrade for not too much money.

Going the whole hog with a nice new flat-panel display with built-in digital tuner certainly adds more to your experience, but the final step from Digital SD to Digital HD is never going to be as dramatic as going from NTSC interlace on an old clunker, to digital SD on a non-interlaced flat-panel.

Going to 4K is unlikley to have anywhere near the impact. It would be a bit like going from an audio bandwidth of 12kHz to 20kHz, most people would not be able to pick the difference on casual listening.
 
Image Quality

Image Quality

Going the whole hog with a nice new flat-panel display with built-in digital tuner certainly adds more to your experience, but the final step from Digital SD to Digital HD is never going to be as dramatic as going from NTSC interlace on an old clunker, to digital SD on a non-interlaced flat-panel.
Click to expand...

Interesting comment. At least my experience the transition from analog transmission to CRT displays to digital transmission to LCD displays resulted in substantially WORSE quality standard definition quality.

The step from that to progressive component analog (DVD) or progressive component digital (720p HD) on exactly the same LCD display is startling.

But once you then get tuned into HD, 720p, 1080i or 1080p, the compromises in 8-bit 4:2:0 MPEG-2 compression start to become very apparent.
 
3D should slightly increase perceived resolution the brain is spectacularly good at combining multiple data sources for that sort of thing. I doubt though it's 1.5x.

Has Cameron commented on why he shot 24p and not 30p? I thought theaters could handle 30p is that incorrect?
 
Joe G. said:
Isn't Avatar 2k PER EYE? Being 3D, it's actually double the 2K, no?
Click to expand...

No, not really. You never see both images at the same time. When you're seeing the left eye image, the right eye is blanked, on essentially all common projection formats used today. So at any moment in time, you're seeing one 2K image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top