Captain America: Civil War

[Mike Nagel]

I can only assume that it is not that easy for Arri to create another sensor in higher resolution with same or better color as ALEV III... I doubt they were just riding out the Alexa dominance because Alexa is for purchase and they would make (even) more money introducing new models sooner than 7 years later...

in order to up the resolution, the pixel pitch would have to be quite smaller than ALEV III in order to be around S35.. and that may just be a penalty in terms of color and/or DR for them with their specific CS approach...

S35 with 5K resolution would be pixel pitch of ~4.8 microns... ALEV III currently has 8.25 microns... that is a difference.

PV Varicam has 6 microns and has very good IQ.... Sony cams F65/F55 etc (when shot correctly) also have very, very good color... F55 slightly below 6 microns...


we'll see what Helium brings, it's hard to tell what to make of it with the initial reports less DR or same DR, color looks identical to me (or: I see no leaps), much higher EI/ISO base (I do not prefer that), diffraction territory... noise seems a finer pattern, but I have no issues with noise on Dragon... usually a new RED sensor always pushed the game forward, so we'll see...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I can only assume that it is not that easy for Arri to create another sensor in higher resolution with same or better color as ALEV III... I doubt they were just riding out the Alexa dominance because Alexa is for purchase and they would make (even) more money introducing new models sooner than 7 years later...

in order to up the resolution, the pixel pitch would have to be quite smaller than ALEV III in order to be around S35.. and that may just be a penalty in terms of color and/or DR for them with their specific CS approach...

S35 with 5K resolution would be pixel pitch of ~4.8 microns... ALEV III currently has 8.25 microns... that is a difference.

PV Varicam has 6 microns and has very good IQ.... Sony cams F65/F55 etc (when shot correctly) also have very, very good color... F55 slightly below 6 microns...


we'll see what Helium brings, it's hard to tell what to make of it with the initial reports less DR or same DR, color looks identical to me (or: I see no leaps), much higher EI/ISO base (I do not prefer that), diffraction territory... noise seems a finer pattern, but I have no issues with noise on Dragon... usually a new RED sensor always pushed the game forward, so we'll see...

Sorry to say, but Arri really have to do something. Even if Helium isn't an Alexa-killer, there will come a sensor of that magnitude, from Red or others. It's not a question of "if". What happens when that happens? If Arri doesn't have a sensor to match up and surpass it's gonna be hard to justify using Alexa.

 

[Brad Grimm]

Sorry to say, but Arri really have to do something. Even if Helium isn't an Alexa-killer, there will come a sensor of that magnitude, from Red or others. It's not a question of "if". What happens when that happens? If Arri doesn't have a sensor to match up and surpass it's gonna be hard to justify using Alexa.

Arri, I am sure has a new sensor waiting... They just allow their owner ops time to make money with their investments before forcing them to get something new again.... what a concept.... But honestly the Mini's are killing it, and they are taking a lot of work away from us RED ops.. and 8K is not going to be an easy sell.. not at all.. when I mention it to my producers, I get countless eye rolls... VV is different.. image characteristics change, Anamorphic... exc.

 

[Paul Geno Johnson]

Hi there

 

[Mike Nagel]

Sorry to say, but Arri really have to do something. Even if Helium isn't an Alexa-killer, there will come a sensor of that magnitude, from Red or others. It's not a question of "if". What happens when that happens? If Arri doesn't have a sensor to match up and surpass it's gonna be hard to justify using Alexa.

Alexa65 is out and in regards to the publicly available cam (which only rental houses and peeps who rent out will buy anyways, b/c it's super expensive): the longer it takes, the better for RED... ;-))))

 

[Mike Nagel]

Arri, I am sure has a new sensor waiting... They just allow their owner ops time to make money with their investments before forcing them to get something new again.... what a concept.... But honestly the Mini's are killing it, and they are taking a lot of work away from us RED ops.. and 8K is not going to be an easy sell.. not at all.. when I mention it to my producers, I get countless eye rolls... VV is different.. image characteristics change, Anamorphic... exc.

the Mini is another prime example for this discussion about importance of color rendition... when Mini was announced, peeps were disappointed, RED owners smiling as we had wayyyy more features already....

and then the new cam with way less features flies off the shelves...

 

[Christoffer Glans]

the Mini is another prime example for this discussion about importance of color rendition... when Mini was announced, peeps were disappointed, RED owners smiling as we had wayyyy more features already....

and then the new cam with way less features flies off the shelves...

I have to guide people all the time shooting on Red. Mainly because they haven't done it before and when I ask why only Alexa "because it's the standard". That "standard" is because of Arri's intelligent dealing with the best cinematographers expectations. They have trash-talked Red in the past while focusing on the importance of using a camera that feels familiar to the working of traditional 35mm. So most cinematographers with long experience in the field of course went directly over to Alexa since Red would have forced them to learn much more about a new shooting workflow. Because Arri managed to move over so many of the best cinematographers it spoke a clear message to people that aren't experienced or who were new to cinematography and thought the camera was the most important thing; "shoot Arri or you will never become a great cinematographer."

This mentality is something I've had to deal with over and over. A kind of extreme criticism against Red from people who never actually shot with the cameras or who'd shot something with them without looking into what it means to shoot Red. I've been in so many discussions with people trash-talking Red and when I ask them how they know all of it they can't answer or they say they tried it and failed (because of them, not the camera really).

The reason why so many bought the mini as a prime camera and not a supplement to a production using Alexa as main camera is because of this fanboyism. Not fanboyism over Arri but over the great cinematographers. People want to use the cameras that their idols use, not what they've found to be the best for what they do.

In all essence, there are too many wannabe cinematographers focusing on replicating their idols instead of learning and digging into the craft itself. I'm not a cinematographer, but I've been digging into both Arri and Red and Red gives me much more possibilites to experiment with the art of cinema. Arri cameras just gives me a good looking image, color-wise, other than that it's just locked, unable to be experimented on. With Red I can experiment with HDR techniques, larger than s35mm images, noise handling, post sharpening, extreme stabilizing or reframing and so on. Many things that I cannot try or do with Arri cameras.

As I mentioned, Arri cameras are pretty locked in the possibilities it gives. Red is like owning a dark room, giving you the ability to do all those things you could experiment with in a dark room. Arri just feels like sending rolls of film to a standard lab which develops the film into a balanced good looking image, but give you limited creative control.

Why filmmakers and cinematographers don't want 150% control over their images I don't know, but for me, it's essential for the creative purpose.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Both Red and ARRI engage in marketing tactics, as do Sony, Canon, etc.

As for why cinematographers don't want 150% control, the main reason is time. There are advantages to having a bulletproof workflow that quickly delivers material for editorial that easily color-corrects when a cinematographer is mainly just going to be shooting, not spending time working with the material in post. Not everyone shoots material, for example, that will be used in a visual effect or gets blown-up to IMAX or even released in 4K. Control is wonderful but even in the days of film, you didn't see a whole lot of cinematographers wishing they could run the ECN-2 negative processor and the FCP print processor so they would have ultimate control.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Both Red and ARRI engage in marketing tactics, as do Sony, Canon, etc.

As for why cinematographers don't want 150% control, the main reason is time. There are advantages to having a bulletproof workflow that quickly delivers material for editorial that easily color-corrects when a cinematographer is mainly just going to be shooting, not spending time working with the material in post. Not everyone shoots material, for example, that will be used in a visual effect or gets blown-up to IMAX or even released in 4K. Control is wonderful but even in the days of film, you didn't see a whole lot of cinematographers wishing they could run the ECN-2 negative processor and the FCP print processor so they would have ultimate control.

True, but what Red offers is the ability to have control, if you need it. I've been on productions where there weren't much need of having huge control, but in post there were hundred of times people banged their head because the material was limited in everything other than colors. So being able to shoot to have control or knowing that when you are on a certain location you might have the ability to shoot in a way that will get you those images you wanted and not be limited to saying "oh, we can't do that, we didn't get the steady" or "oh, darn we can't get the sky and actors within DR range" and so on. With Arri there's no backup, but both of those situations I've been in, doing some handheld and post-stabilized the images into looking like dolly-shots or shooting HDR to reach 25 stops of DR in order to roll off and keep the bright dusk sky that were totally out of reach. I didn't plan on doing it that way, but sometimes production schedules fails and you don't have the gear you needed or the environment didn't end up the way it was on location scouting. It's also easy to color correct if you get it into routine. I think it's the lack of Red routine that makes colorists fail at grading Red. I see Red features and series all the time that looks awesome and not "Redish".

As for marketing, of course, but it's an answer to why almost all cinematography-awarded features are shot on Arri, it's not because of the cameras, it's because of the cinematographers and Arri took care of being the bridge over to digital for them while many new cinematographers want to go in their footsteps. It was smart on Arri's part. I do however believe to a great certainty that if any of these awarded cinematographers used a Red, they would create remarkable images with it.

 

[sam karr]

True, but what Red offers is the ability to have control, if you need it. I've been on productions where there weren't much need of having huge control, but in post there were hundred of times people banged their head because the material was limited in everything other than colors. So being able to shoot to have control or knowing that when you are on a certain location you might have the ability to shoot in a way that will get you those images you wanted and not be limited to saying "oh, we can't do that, we didn't get the steady" or "oh, darn we can't get the sky and actors within DR range" and so on. With Arri there's no backup, but both of those situations I've been in, doing some handheld and post-stabilized the images into looking like dolly-shots or shooting HDR to reach 25 stops of DR in order to roll off and keep the bright dusk sky that were totally out of reach. I didn't plan on doing it that way, but sometimes production schedules fails and you don't have the gear you needed or the environment didn't end up the way it was on location scouting. It's also easy to color correct if you get it into routine. I think it's the lack of Red routine that makes colorists fail at grading Red. I see Red features and series all the time that looks awesome and not "Redish".

As for marketing, of course, but it's an answer to why almost all cinematography-awarded features are shot on Arri, it's not because of the cameras, it's because of the cinematographers and Arri took care of being the bridge over to digital for them while many new cinematographers want to go in their footsteps. It was smart on Arri's part. I do however believe to a great certainty that if any of these awarded cinematographers used a Red, they would create remarkable images with it.

But they use Red. There are tons of movies shot on Alexa still using Red cameras for aerial, VFX, etc. These people are not against Red for sure as they also use them. Why can't you just accept that some people just prefer the look of the Alexa? You prefer Red images, that's great as you own a Red. What I don't get is why it bothers you. The recognition should be through our work, not through the camera we own. And I read much more bashing of other brands here than the opposite. It often looks like people are insecure here. I own a Varicam, I'm in love with it, i don't care that so few people shoot on it. It's the opposite, being far from the herd is a good thing, having a camera with a unique look that not so many people use is great. I still love Red cameras for what they offer. And David is right, there is as much marketing with Red than the other brands. It is how companies work.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I agree there are lots of good reasons to shoot in 6K, etc. for stabilization reasons though that hasn't come up much in what I tend to shoot.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

But they use Red. There are tons of movies shot on Alexa still using Red cameras for aerial, VFX, etc. These people are not against Red for sure as they also use them. Why can't you just accept that some people just prefer the look of the Alexa? You prefer Red images, that's great as you own a Red. What I don't get is why it bothers you. The recognition should be through our work, not through the camera we own. And I read much more bashing of other brands here than the opposite. It often looks like people are insecure here. I own a Varicam, I'm in love with it, i don't care that so few people shoot on it. It's the opposite, being far from the herd is a good thing, having a camera with a unique look that not so many people use is great. I still love Red cameras for what they offer. And David is right, there is as much marketing with Red than the other brands. It is how companies work.

Of course there's more bashing on other brands on the forum for one specific brand, isn't that kinda logical? And debating cameras isn't about accepting that other people "likes" a look, because that's the most boring thing to say in a discussion about two sides. It's like political debate abruptly ending with "well, can't you all just accept that some like that side and some like the other". What I'm actually criticizing is the kind of bashing done without the knowledge or experience of another camera. I'm not talking about bashing written on this forum specifically, I'm talking about what I hear in the industry and there's a lot of people saying all kinds of things about Red and Arri, both positive and negative that just aren't true or are widely over-exaggerated.

It's also a self interest to this. I have a camera, I want to get hired. But I'm also not going to speak ill of things that aren't bad. Arri's color science is superior, that's just it, others knows it and I've also experienced it. But resolution isn't good and I've also experienced that. If I hear people who always shoot with Alexa talk bad about Red it's in my self interest as a Red owner to tell them why they are wrong, if they are wrong. I really don't care about what people likes if I own a business and I don't get hired because someone doesn't like skin tones of Red, referring to a job done on Red One five years ago. It's in my interest to correct them and show them.

What I'm criticizing is the filmmakers who look up to their idolized favorite cinematographers and choose a system based on what they use, not what's best for the project, which is something I've seen plenty of times with my own eyes. That thing is just weird and in some ways unprofessional, especially when they talk to producers and saying things like "don't ever shoot Red, it's just bad", which I've also experienced producers retelling that they've heard.

Like in this case, you own a Varicam. I couldn't possible comment on the quality of Varicam other than what I know from the old one and from the specs of the new one, but I would never say bad things like that around people who might work with you too. Think about it, you try to get a job with your camera and the producer says that they won't hire you because some cinematographer no one has heard of said that Varicam just isn't good for anything. So there you lost a job because of unjustified trash talk.

So if I discuss the lack of resolution on Arri and my experience with it, that's not trash talk, because the fact is that Arri is a sub-4K system and Red is not. People still argues and come up with things like "but what is resolution... really?" which is just absurd. So to counter-argue that I prefer Red over Arri; I never said that. I said I prefer Arri's color science, but I prefer the resolution and the control Red gives, much more. I like both cameras, but facts about them need to get straight, because there's too much weird things being said all around the industry, at least where I am.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

I agree there are lots of good reasons to shoot in 6K, etc. for stabilization reasons though that hasn't come up much in what I tend to shoot.

Maybe you have a great team getting everything together on location in the first place, I'm glad if I could afford to hire a focus puller

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

please don't write answers to each sentence, it's much easier to debate with a coherent written text in front of you.

Coherent text = each notion separated so it's easier to read and focus on each.

The arrogance I'm talking about is the arrogance of speaking a truth about filmmaking technology and resolution as if it was the decided upon rules of the entire industry.

You mean as "3K is not good enough" rhetoric ?

3K to 2K is preferable because as I said, A) There's no distribution format for 3K and B) Supersampling, reducing noise, etc. A debayer sensor in it's RAW resolution is filled with the artifacts of how a debayer sensor works. Downscaling will cram it all together pixels and will also improve on color information since in it's RAW state the luminance values are greater than the color values, which in return yields better fidelity when grading. If you upscale 3K to 4K you will enhance the artifacts or if the artifacts, like moiré is reduced by OLPFs you will have a slightly blurred 3K image that you are enhancing with post-sharpness to fit the pixels of a 4K resolution.

a) You are welcome to point out those issues in some example.
b) No need to reduce noise if you expose the shot properly
c) Supersampling 3K to 2K for 4K delivery makes zero sense

I've talked to lab owners who's been doing tests around the world trying to find out the true usable resolution. Yes, you can say that it's 100K if you want 50 pixels per chemical grain in each frame, but that's not what usable resolution is about. They've been testing different stocks and found that with the best and most clean 35mm stocks a 35mm resolves at around 5K as a usable resolution.

And yet films shot on R1 had more image detail somehow. (Not texture detail)

Netflix want to have true 4K, they could have easily gone with Alexa 3.2K and their upscale and still used 4K as a marketing babble, how come they didn't?

Because a) 4K is the next standard and b) re-seller entity management meetings typically don't prioritize folks with art school. Or shooting experience.

Netflix dared to take a stand in this matter and you mock it as marketing babble.

You see daring quality experts and some kind of authority, I see entitled marketing babble prioritizing numbers over aesthetics and creative choice.

Arri claiming 3.2K is actually 4K is really the marketing babble here.

Strawman. Arri never said 3.2K is actually 4K.

I prefer companies that favors progression over delusions of grandeur.

Understood. Arri is delusional as well.

Your point on what's important, that resolution is not important and just numbers, that's just your personal opinion, but you just have to go back to when 720p and 1080p were around. People couldn't see the difference, many spoke in favor of 720p with the same arguments that it's just "numbers" and today if someone delivers 720p saying "numbers doesn't matter" you probably won't hire them again. The debate is the same as back then, no exceptions and I probably already know which side is going to win in this matter.

Attempt #2.

"Resolution" is an electronic quantization factor. With storytelling, past the point of being able to see without strain what is told, additional resolution (higher quantization) is not "enhancing" the story, it is just changing the effect and aesthetic of the image. Which can aid or limit storytelling, depending on what is shot and what the storyteller's intent is. Too much information can be distracting and too high sampling can be too factual for fiction. Ask Peter Jackson about results of more realistic presentation of folks with rubber faces.

Your brain sees no "resolution" and adapts to any when watching a film. Focusing on meaning and emotion.
No, those are not opinions.

But I wonder why you polarize between resolution and color, you can both have good colors and good resolution.

Another strawman passing by.

As I've been saying, I don't know why Arri aren't releasing a sensor with higher than 4K resolution for their Alexa s35mm cameras.

They already said why but you seem to have a problem assimilating the answer.

I don't have a clue what you are talking about. Processing 3.2K footage into a 4K deliverable, even if it's in camera and comparing it to a processed 6K downscale to the same format gives a clear picture of what I'm speaking of.

You are running in circles with mathematics and haven't responded to a question - what is the problem in having 3K as a creative option as well ?

As I said, there are plenty of people who are unable to see the difference between resolutions, just as there were plenty who couldn't see the difference between 720p and 1080p.

Yet the fact that some choose 3K acquisition and some make cameras which shoot 3K seems to bother you.

Progression always wins and your opinion is a mirror image of negative voices during past technological shifts. Either you repeat history or get progressive.

Thank you for the analysis and suggestion.

The look of Alexa is great in terms of colors, not with resolution. When I see a movie shot on Alexa it's usually on a 1080p screen so of course it looks good on that. But on a 4K screen the lack of resolution becomes apparent. You are trying to undermine my arguments based on me liking the "look" by lumping together everything saying "You said you liked the look, that means the resolution, so that menas you're wrong because you also like the lack of resolution", come on man, stop grasping straws here.

"Lack of resolution" = impression the analytical part of mind makes using 4K/5K/6K as a reference.

If you take what is shot as a reference - because that is what the filmmaker chose and it's his movie not yours, so it doesn't matter what you want - there is no "lack of resolution".

No I don't have to shoot 8K but it generates a much smoother image that reduces the digital and makes it more organic. Read up on the "smooth vs sharp" that's been discussed here at reduser.
And yes, 3.2K sucks, it doesn't make sense. Why Arri restrict their tech to such a resolution when the rest of the world goes into 4K and will be doing 4K as a regular standard pretty soon does indeed suck. Once again I would suggest reading up on how debayer downscale processes works and read up on why 8K is so powerful for a downscale to 4K. You don't need links, it's all here on reduser.

3.2 sucks. Smooth vs sharp. Debayer. Reduser.
Roger that.

I consider "correct" handling of 4K resolution to first and foremost actually having acquired those pixels in the first place and not simulating them with fake ones through interpolation, which is what Arri is doing. This is not a question of opinion, it's a fact. Acquired 4K is native resolution if it's natively acquired, there's no opinion that changes the reality of the math.

There are however people behind the camera which don't bother with the math that much but mostly with the image.

We are not talking about storyteller desires here, we are talking about the technology and the future of it.

You mean - you are talking about technology and completely disregarding storyteller's choice.

Fake resolution will always be fake, even if it's interpolated. Some can't see the difference, some can, but this discussion doesn't care about the storytellers desires because they are irrelevant when speaking facts about the tech. You mixing them together just feels desperate to prove a point when the facts are staring back at you.

On a thread about a movie, predominantly shot on Arri you felt the need to express dissatisfaction with Arri and Alexa and extrapolate the technological advantages of higher resolution image quantization.

The reason Arri is used on most award winning films has been because Arri made a great deal of marketing to filmmakers who went over from always shooting film to shooting digital. Most of these cinematographers have been working for years and are the best in the industry. Arri made sure their camera works just as 35mm cameras does so that the transition was seamless over to digital. Because of this, they made friends with most of the best cinematographers in the industry. Red however only focused on delivering the best camera they could make and there are many great filmmakers who liked that more because they knew more about tech than many 35mm filmmakers. Like Fincher and Soderbergh who have been praised for their works.

Okay then, many are unaware of the universal supremacy of super-sampling and just use Arri because of inertia, ignorance and lobbying.
And that impression has nothing to do with your bias whatsoever.

But maybe you could inform Fincher and Soderbergh why their opinions aren't as well thought through as your own, since you clearly try to mock the decision-makers at Netflix and in line with that surely would argue against the minds of Fincher which would be pretty amusing to see.

That doesn't make any sense.
I don't have a problem with who shoots on what. That seems to be your issue.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

Quibbling always looks better in a PM.

 

[Juan Melara]

As I mentioned, Arri cameras are pretty locked in the possibilities it gives. Red is like owning a dark room, giving you the ability to do all those things you could experiment with in a dark room. Arri just feels like sending rolls of film to a standard lab which develops the film into a balanced good looking image, but give you limited creative control.

Why filmmakers and cinematographers don't want 150% control over their images I don't know, but for me, it's essential for the creative purpose.

Could you explain this further? How is the Alexa limiting the control you have over your image?

 

[Stacey Spears]

Hrvoje, that must have taken a while. LOL

Why filmmakers and cinematographers don't want 150% control over their images I don't know, but for me, it's essential for the creative purpose.

Sometimes they just need to get the job done with a tight deadline. Probably more often than not. Besides, the less time they spend futzing with the footage, the more time they get to spend on their favorite camera forum debating with others.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Sometimes they just need to get the job done with a tight deadline. Probably more often than not. Besides, the less time they spend futzing with the footage, the more time they get to spend on their favorite camera forum debating with others.

That's really the truth. With the type of indie features and shorts I get these days, we're blessed if we have at most 3 minutes per shot to futz, correct, and fix any photographic or makeup or set issues. Assuming 1500 shots per project, that's 4500 minutes, which is 75 hours. And trust me, that's a generous budget for a lot of indie features in final color. Realistically, it's more like two complete passes through the project over a period of 9-10 days, then a final viewing and small tweaks on the last day. And there are always projects that have to be done a lot faster.

We can stop down and spend 15-20 minutes on a single shot in some cases, provided we can pick up the pace and blow through the next 20-30 shots in :30 seconds each. But at some point, it becomes a game of "how much can we change from the original lighting," when the question really should be "how can we enhance and preserve the DP's work?"

A lot of times, my fear is that post-production can become a situation of just because you can change something doesn't mean you should change something.

This is understandably a big concern for contemporary DPs. If the producers, studio, and director have the ability to override their lighting choices, things can go off the tracks very quickly. In the case of Captain America -- which was the original point of this thread -- I think it's fair to say the Russo brothers had tight control over the project, and Marvel gave them a fairly long leash to get the work done, in conjunction with DP Trent Opaloch. And I think the results from Steve Scott and his color-correction crew at Technicolor were fine. I don't think the movie would have been 1% better shot on Red or Sony or Panasonic or Canon or anything else; it's more about the art direction, the exposure, the lenses, and the lighting (not necessarily in that order).

 

[Mike Nagel]

fully agree with Marc.

Time is of the essence, especially when on low budget and your outsourcing post work. You need to get through the entire movie, within that budget. And with content that looks rather good / neutral by default this is much easier. That's the first major thing. Again this is color ONLY related, never a question of resolution.

Second, most indie filmmakers do not have the insanely high standards that I have or others, u also see this on major movie releases. They are okay with a generally pleasing image and don't need to squeeze 150% out of each shot. They only care about a generally good image - that is one that they are used to and/or were conditioned with their entire life: film. And Alexa looks closest. I see so many movies where I spot right away the 1D is off in many shots... or: missed potential (IMO).

I've had the same discussions with filmmakers over "why RED is bad/unusable... too complicated etc etc etc" a million times over here in this town... I should collect residuals from Jarred directly... how am I not yet an official embassador of this brand is unreal to me... ;-)))) (and by that I mean: I want free gear)

but for most of the indie filmmakers no matter how u twist and turn it, they are absolutely right going the easiest route... as they are facing so many other issues already... sound (sound, sound fx, sound design, sound edit, sound mix, score) for example is another huge, huge hurdle they are facing and they don't wanna deal with unnecessary color issues... and for me: sound is 51% of every movie.

and tbh, technology is here to help us, so arguing "well back in the film days u also needed to know exactly what u were doing" does not make much sense... for sure not for these people, as they would never shoot projects if they had to go through film and the entrance barrier that came with it...

to each their own.

 

[Steve Conry]

Downscaling resolution on a bayer sensor is always superior for resolution. Why downscale 3K? Because 3K doesn't exist as a delivery format and a downscale from 3K to 2K is superior than just a native 3K image even if you had a 3K monitor. Upscaled 3K to 4K looks crap, if you haven't seen upscaled 4K on a 4K screen do it. Compared to proper 4K+ acquisition with downscale to 4K output, it's night and day. And 35mm is considered to have around 5K of resolution if you speak to lab engineers and cinematographers who's been doing tests on it.

So you think 4k (6k/8k) are integral to a good image, but that people down res their 3k to 2k? If k's are so crucial, why let so many good k's go to waste? It seems like upresing them to 4k for a standard delivery format would be better than crushing them down, no? Otherwise we dont get to see all the k's...

And yes, 3.2K sucks, it doesn't make sense.

Seems a little black and white, no? Isnt it possible that some people prefer a softer image for certain films and its just your preference to have super sharp images?

If Arri doesn't have a sensor to match up and surpass it's gonna be hard to justify using Alexa.

And yet so many accomplished filmmakers that have access to whatever camera they want do every day...

The reason why so many bought the mini as a prime camera and not a supplement to a production using Alexa as main camera is because of this fanboyism. Not fanboyism over Arri but over the great cinematographers. People want to use the cameras that their idols use, not what they've found to be the best for what they do.

This is just false. Fanboyism may play into it for some, but for many of us, our choice of camera comes down to picking the right too for the job. In many cases thats alexa. If i have something where extra resolution will be critical, of course red is on the list of potential options. But if the project necessitates a rock solid, reliable, easy to use camera with built in ND's, flawless color, beautiful highlights and high frame rates without sensor cropping, i am likely to use alexa.

With Red I can experiment with HDR techniques, larger than s35mm images, noise handling, post sharpening, extreme stabilizing or reframing and so on. Many things that I cannot try or do with Arri cameras.

You can do many of these things on alexa. And while it may not have HDR, it is rare that you run into scenes with so much contrast that the dynamic range is an issue...

As I mentioned, Arri cameras are pretty locked in the possibilities it gives. Red is like owning a dark room, giving you the ability to do all those things you could experiment with in a dark room. Arri just feels like sending rolls of film to a standard lab which develops the film into a balanced good looking image, but give you limited creative control.

This is so romanticized and bizarre... how is red like owning a dark room? Like really? haha, yes pro-res is less flexible than redcode. but arri has raw too. this is not exclusive to red... and many people enjoyed shooting film. Seems like an odd analogy.

"oh, we can't do that, we didn't get the steady" or "oh, darn we can't get the sky and actors within DR range" and so on. With Arri there's no backup, but both of those situations I've been in, doing some handheld and post-stabilized the images into looking like dolly-shots or shooting HDR to reach 25 stops of DR in order to roll off and keep the bright dusk sky that were totally out of reach.

Having extra resolution to stablize is not the same thing as a steadicam... and its not like you cant stabilize arri footage. I do it all the time and it looks great. And DR wise--again, if you are running into situations where the alexa doesnt have enough DR, you probably arent lighting or using basic options for fill--ie a bounce card, small fixture--and i am not sure that Alexa or Red are really the problem. That said, if i were going to let my highlights or shadows go on one of those systems, i would choose Alexa because I prefer the way the it handles clipping.

I see Red features and series all the time that looks awesome and not "Redish”.

The fact that you acknowledge that you "see red features that dont look redish" seems to imply that you dont inherently love the Red look and that, at times, you have seen people work through it. While i dont usually see legit productions and think, "thats clearly shot on Red," I do see a lot of web content that has funky color issues. I know in my time owning an epic I have had many. On our Alexa, never had any complaints.

As for marketing, of course, but it's an answer to why almost all cinematography-awarded features are shot on Arri, it's not because of the cameras, it's because of the cinematographers and Arri took care of being the bridge over to digital for them while many new cinematographers want to go in their footsteps.

It was smart on Arri's part. I do however believe to a great certainty that if any of these awarded cinematographers used a Red, they would create remarkable images with it.

And yet again, on the whole, they dont chose red. Many do, and their results are awesome--likely no better or worse than if they chose Alexa--because they are talented and the camera is just a tool. But they make the choice that they feel is best for them and i think its very arrogant to try to say that they do this because they are fanboys, ignorant or simply sheep. Isn't it possible they just like the images better and dont think "3.2k sucks"?

Arri made sure their camera works just as 35mm cameras does so that the transition was seamless over to digital. Because of this, they made friends with most of the best cinematographers in the industry. Red however only focused on delivering the best camera they could make and there are many great filmmakers who liked that more because they knew more about tech than many 35mm filmmakers. Like Fincher and Soderbergh who have been praised for their works.

You dont think its possible that Arri was also focusing on making the best camera the could make and part of that was to make "their camera work just as 35mm cameras does so that the transition was seamless over to digital." Its like you think Red is the only company that is trying, just because they prioritize specs the way you do.

For some filmmakers its not about "tech", its about the best IQ and ergonomics. Is it possible that some of us define those two things differently?

Ironically, I think pulling Fincher and Soderbergh into the argument works against you. You have spent all of this time arguing that we shouldnt trust a camera just because all of the big guys use it and then you call on two of the most notable adopters of Red to make your point that its the best? You dont think someone could make a very long list of filmmakers who "have been praised for their works" on Alexa????

But maybe you could inform Fincher and Soderbergh why their opinions aren't as well thought through as your own, since you clearly try to mock the decision-makers at Netflix and in line with that surely would argue against the minds of Fincher which would be pretty amusing to see.

The irony! Maybe you can keep telling pretty much every DP nominated for an academy award in the past few years (and amazon for that matter) why your opinion is better than their... that actually has been amusing...

What I'm criticizing is the filmmakers who look up to their idolized favorite cinematographers and choose a system based on what they use, not what's best for the project, which is something I've seen plenty of times with my own eyes. That thing is just weird and in some ways unprofessional, especially when they talk to producers and saying things like "don't ever shoot Red, it's just bad", which I've also experienced producers retelling that they've heard.

Irony

Think about it, you try to get a job with your camera and the producer says that they won't hire you because some cinematographer no one has heard of said that Varicam just isn't good for anything. So there you lost a job because of unjustified trash talk

I have shot 90% Red for about 4 years and never once lost a job because of the camera i have. Usually clients hire creatives, not equipment. If you are losing jobs because of your equipment, then I think you either have the wrong clients or you are positioning yourself wrong. If a producer wants a particular piece of equipment let them rent it, but you are worth more than the camera. That said, this makes helps me understand why you are on just about every post that comes up fighting for the camera you have at a given moment. It's a bit tiresome for those of us who just want to learn about the topic the thread started with, rather than debate why Red or the Weapon are better than this or that.

Maybe you have a great team getting everything together on location in the first place, I'm glad if I could afford to hire a focus puller

Last thought--do you think its possible that if you were working under the conditions (with a team, lighting package, hard deadlines, focus puller, etc.), the way 95% of Alexa users do, you miiiiiiiiight have a little more understanding of their decision making process when they chose a camera? Because you arent the only person who knows about Red (/4k) and they arent just choosing it cuz Chivo did. Maybe they are seeing something you are not...