Dragon vs Alexa 65

[Adrian Jebef]

The "Versus" conversation is mostly interesting for the type of clientele/customer/shooter this Alexa65 is targeted at.

To give Arri some credit here, there was a gap for a proper 65mm digital cinema camera.

Maybe more like a sliver. Though the camera is exciting and intriguing what recent Productions have actually shot in the 65mm+ format recently?

Batman
Transformers
Hunger Games
The Master

So basically $150 Million+ blockbusters and the occasional well-financed art film. ARRI isn't releasing this camera to sell units it's releasing it to meet the demand of the top 1% of its clients.

 

[Brian Merlen]

I wonder with digital if more films will want to go this route. Certainly has to be cheaper then doing actual 65mm film.. Plus if they are trying to decide between s35 arri raw and alexa 65 arri raw both have huge storage requirements so it may make the format more accessible to a larger number of productions I would imagine... and if it doesn't whatever red is working on will be more mainstream anyway..

Maybe more like a sliver. Though the camera is exciting and intriguing what recent Productions have actually shot in the 65mm+ format recently?

Batman
Transformers
Hunger Games
The Master

So basically $150 Million+ blockbusters and the occasional well-financed art film. ARRI isn't releasing this camera to sell units it's releasing it to meet the demand of the top 1% of its clients.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Phil you know very well, that there is no confusing message coming from ARRI on the question of resolution. ARRI was very clear on the subject of necessity of 4k resolution for the scanners. On the other hand, for a long time, they advocated 2K for camera acquisition. I can't speak for ARRI, but my understanding of their design and marketing philosophy is they would rather do the best 2k image possible rather than release a mediocre 4k camera. And that was the reason for abandoning the Alexa 4k in 2011. In Alexa 65 they feel their image standard is maintained. Again not speaking for ARRI, but my feeling concerning the decision to do rental only (BTW, that can quickly change with the right market conditions) is to find the way to stop or at least to slow down the race to the bottom we're seeing in the market place right now.

AGree with Jake. You can think of this as the opposite of a Vimeo Kiddie BM Pocket Bargain Camera with Free Tripod. I for one welcome this.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Maybe more like a sliver. Though the camera is exciting and intriguing what recent Productions have actually shot in the 65mm+ format recently?

Batman
Transformers
Hunger Games
The Master

So basically $150 Million+ blockbusters and the occasional well-financed art film. ARRI isn't releasing this camera to sell units it's releasing it to meet the demand of the top 1% of its clients.

That's because 65 mm film is insanely expensive. Digital much less so.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

"Race to the bottom" =

Stop the revolution, we've gone far enough, I'm beginning to smell the street.

There was no revolution. Most no budget indy films still get no viewers, except for cat videos on youtube Most professional productions are still shot more or less the same way they were 20 years ago. All that happened is that salaries were given a haircut, and some crew members have less working days per year. Not my kind of revolution.

 

[Adrian Jebef]

That's because 65 mm film is insanely expensive. Digital much less so.

When you add it up I'd wager shooting 65mm film, getting it developed, scanned, and archived will actually be cheaper than shooting on the new Alexa65 system. Digital allows for a much more seamless transition of different camera original material into the Post Pipe but the upfront cost to shoot on the A65 will undoubtedly bring any Producer to his or her knees.

 

[M Most]

When you add it up I'd wager shooting 65mm film, getting it developed, scanned, and archived will actually be cheaper than shooting on the new Alexa65 system. Digital allows for a much more seamless transition of different camera original material into the Post Pipe but the upfront cost to shoot on the A65 will undoubtedly bring any Producer to his or her knees.

That's likely true. I don't think Ive ever heard a production complain about the cost of the camera. But on nearly every production - even some really large ones - I've repeatedly heard that they either don't have or can't afford enough cards. Multiply the current ArriRaw requirements by a factor of almost 5 and that situation becomes even more inflamed.

 

[Humberto Rivera]

M Most
Originally Posted by Adrian Jebef
When you add it up I'd wager shooting 65mm film, getting it developed, scanned, and archived will actually be cheaper than shooting on the new Alexa65 system. Digital allows for a much more seamless transition of different camera original material into the Post Pipe but the upfront cost to shoot on the A65 will undoubtedly bring any Producer to his or her knees.

That's likely true. I don't think Ive ever heard a production complain about the cost of the camera. But on nearly every production - even some really large ones - I've repeatedly heard that they either don't have or can't afford enough cards. Multiply the current ArriRaw requirements by a factor of almost 5 and that situation becomes even more inflamed.

Amen! Humberto Rivera

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

When you add it up I'd wager shooting 65mm film, getting it developed, scanned, and archived will actually be cheaper than shooting on the new Alexa65 system. Digital allows for a much more seamless transition of different camera original material into the Post Pipe but the upfront cost to shoot on the A65 will undoubtedly bring any Producer to his or her knees.

I don't have to wager - I was on a 65 mm shoot - it's way, way more expensive. Film is "use once".

 

[Brian Merlen]

Well like I posted previously (not sure if its this thread or the other one in off topic since I have been fairly active in both threads so far) arrirentals does not have a price set yet and its unavailable until Nov at this time. But ANYONE is welcome to come test it out at their facility. That is a great offer for interested DPs, DITs, and the people who need to get a grasp for this particular system! If its too far along for a production cost wise, then glad to have Dragons, Epics, Amira, XTs, classic Alexas, and various Sonys/Canons/Panasonics available! This is a great time for tool sets and choice! Maybe not in the 65mm format, but if the budgets are bad, there is a multitude of options on the market. Clearly only those who can afford Arri Raw (and enough storage/cards) are going to go for this...

Like I also said previously, at least they have prores options (like don't save the raw, but keep the 444 from the codex vault). I've worked on even red jobs that throw away the raw and only keep the proxies. There are various ways to cut corners, but keeping your masters is always what I advise first..

 

[Randall Weatherington]

Originally Posted by Adrian Jebef
When you add it up I'd wager shooting 65mm film, getting it developed, scanned, and archived will actually be cheaper than shooting on the new Alexa65 system. Digital allows for a much more seamless transition of different camera original material into the Post Pipe but the upfront cost to shoot on the A65 will undoubtedly bring any Producer to his or her knees.

I don't have to wager - I was on a 65 mm shoot - it's way, way more expensive. Film is "use once".

Not to mention the fact that you need to rent a fork lift just to carry the film, and load the magazine onto the camera ;-)
Also, how many labs are still equipped to process 65/70mm. Are they running the processors every day or only once in a while?
When the labs do have a job that warrants firing up the processors, do they maintain chemical ph on a daily basis?
65mm film is subject to chemical mottling during processing because of its large area. Are you going to get streaking?

 

[Arben Thachia]

I miss Jim's post.

 

[Karim D. Ghantous]

There was no revolution. Most no budget indy films still get no viewers,

I think the data will back you up. I do wonder: how to solve this problem (if it is a problem)? I think I have a suggestion. Either the independent films have really crap, unimaginative stories; or indie producers ought to target TV instead. Lots of channels, plus Netflix to sell to.

Indie producers probably have good films but aren't getting with the program. Maybe they look down on TV when they could look up to it. Not everyone is going to be Spielberg who gets shown at Cannes or who wins Academy Awards. But - a lot of people can produce original TV content. Am I wrong?

When you add it up I'd wager shooting 65mm film, getting it developed, scanned, and archived will actually be cheaper than shooting on the new Alexa65 system. Digital allows for a much more seamless transition of different camera original material into the Post Pipe but the upfront cost to shoot on the A65 will undoubtedly bring any Producer to his or her knees.

Very interesting. We'll see. Some say that 35mm is not really much more expensive than digital, once you factor in everything. But every production is different.

And as I wrote before, anamorphic is your money melon.

RED is - or will be - the 35mm of digital systems. The format used by most productions most of the time. There's no need to go chasing every niche.

 

[Nick Morrison]

IBut - a lot of people can produce original TV content. Am I wrong?

You're not wrong. But you may underestimate how hard it is to get content on air. At least in the US. I work in broadcast, and am alarmed by how few small production companies there are. Most of the shows I work on are produced by MAJOR production companies - outfits that can work with smaller margins, and absorb overages on a series that gets too many notes.

Also, networks seem loathe to trust smaller shops. The risk is just too high. Even a small series can end up costing a million+ (10 episodes @ 100K+ is not unheard of) . So..it's just a risk.

So you're right...you don't have to be winning Academy awards or Emmys to be busy. But just like making a "real" movie is hard...so is making a "real" show. Even with so many networks out there, the odds...are just stacked against you.

Hope this helps.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Nick said it well. But I think the real challenge is scripts. Indies are always complaining about how unoriginal they think Hollywood scripts are, but most of what I've read and seen in the indy world revolves around a very small number of themes, and on top of that had unlikeable main characters, poor story structure, bad dialogue - the list goes on. The fact that large numbers of people do not want to see this kind of thing is not surprising. You can preach and feel superior, and whine that people "should" want to see yet another dreary drama about a drug deal and/or robbery in an L.A. convenience store gone wrong (or another Zombie movie) but the fact is you can't really blame them for not wanting to, because these stories are boring and dispiriting. Most hollywood films are neither. Girls just wanna have fun, and boys too.

It doesn't have much to do with the "old guard of dinosaurs keeping newcomers out". They welcome newcomers, as long as they understand story and what sizable audiences want, and they're not too doochey, superior and pretentious to agree that these audiences should be given what they want, agree that they are not superior to the average hard working Joe and Jane who want to go to the cineplex and just have a good time.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Nick said it well. But I think the real challenge is scripts. Indies are always complaining about how unoriginal they think Hollywood scripts are, but most of what I've read and seen in the indy world revolves around a very small number of themes, and on top of that had unlikeable main characters, poor story structure, bad dialogue - the list goes on. The fact that large numbers of people do not want to see this kind of thing is not surprising. You can preach and feel superior, and whine that people "should" want to see yet another dreary drama about a drug deal and/or robbery in an L.A. convenience store gone wrong (or another Zombie movie) but the fact is you can't really blame them for not wanting to, because these stories are boring and dispiriting. Most hollywood films are neither. Girls just wanna have fun, and boys too.

It doesn't have much to do with the "old guard of dinosaurs keeping newcomers out". They welcome newcomers, as long as they understand story and what sizable audiences want, and they're not too doochey, superior and pretentious to agree that these audiences should be given what they want, agree that they are not superior to the average hard working Joe and Jane who want to go to the cineplex and just have a good time.

Agree 1000%.

In TV, one of the most under-appreciated elements...is how CRUCIAL structure is. I had a legendary programmer remind me she spent MONTHS writing the intro to a now iconic, hit show. Those 30-40 words that "open" each episode, and explain it, took her forever to write and perfect.

If you break down a show like PAWN STARS, you'll realize how sophisticated the structure is. It's not random that on holidays people easily watch 6 episodes back to back. The show is DESIGNED to be that digestible. But to make that happen...is SO HARD.

People would be shocked at how many "writers" are on reality shows too, slaving to generate compelling storylines. To make each episode FUN and INTERESTING. Making GOOD TV is very, very hard work.

So totally agree. It's mostly about script/story/structure.

It's actually not uncommon for a reality show to be shot POORLY. But tell a GOOD STORY. And DO WELL.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

The challenge I think would be that a TV series would be far costlier to produce for an indi than a solid feature. Look at some amazing low budget examples like Shane Carruth's Primer or Upstream Color, he was able to create a great film/s with minimal means, but he'd never have been able to produce a 6-12 episode series with his budget.

So as far as looking for a big break, I think making an indi feature would be a lot easier than an indi series.

 

[Nick Morrison]

The challenge I think would be that a TV series would be far costlier to produce for an indi than a solid feature. Look at some amazing low budget examples like Shane Carruth's Primer or Upstream Color, he was able to create a great film/s with minimal means, but he'd never have been able to produce a 6-12 episode series with his budget.

So as far as looking for a big break, I think making an indi feature would be a lot easier than an indi series.

Totally agree. An indie movie would certainly be easier than an indie series.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

It's actually not uncommon for a reality show to be shot POORLY. But tell a GOOD STORY. And DO WELL.

People watch reality TV for the drama, and good reality TV can be so much more dramatic than a lot of fictional TV. Interesting insight from within the industry thanks Nick.

 

[Daniel Pearson]

Also agree. It's not just total cash outlay, it's also that continuity gets worse the longer the whole thing is. Only GREAT actors can make a character believable and compelling over tens of hours of audience exposure - they can;t just have a shallow read on who that character is - it's the opposite of a bit part - and the same goes for the director. Continuity in feel, in acting, in pacing, tempered by just the right amount of variation - so a show feels familiar yet continues to surprise, that is HARD to do. Massive Kudos to those who can.

A movie is easier, because it's less running time. In a way it's the same phenomenon that explains why there are less good directors and DPs than there are good photographers, and why videography costs so much more than photography. A single frame that works on its own is not the same as thousands that must work in perfect concert with each other.

I think this is very true, proof can be seen in the amount of shows with a killer few seasons that just go off the rails a bit - you have a strong concept and a great first season, but by season 7 it can be hard to know where to take it, and hard to get constantly right. And this can happen with the best shows out there...