EPIC and Alexa...

[Kemalettin Sert]

Roger Deakins recently stated in his board DR is too much important for him in digital cinema..If he says he's going to use alexa in his next project because of better DR are you guys going to attack him ? just weird..
We all know big DP's only care about DR not RESOLUTION.Am i completely wrong about this?

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Arri rolls off the highlights better.

You can see a bit more separation between the two highest EV's on the chart (bottom / brightest ones). Reading top to bottom, each EV block represents double the amount of light from the one above it. RED shows a bit more definition on the low end, but the Alexa seems to register more on the high end, which signals greater overall DR.

EV blocks cannot show precisely what is really happening in those highlights and what RED does there.

Overall perceived DR vs. eye pleasing highlight roll off...one affects another. It's up to individual priorities.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

EV blocks cannot show precisely what is really happening in those highlights and what RED does there.

Overall perceived DR vs. eye pleasing highlight roll off...one affects another. It's up to individual priorities.

Sure. But the EV's don't lie about range and I think that's why Jim congratulated Arri and acknowledged a slight advantage there. ....I'm willing to bet this isn't the last we'll see of this, nor is it the final word on what we'll see coming from the MX sensor in an Epic camera. No one can say for sure what will happen or how the real-world DR will compare between these two cameras until they are both fully in place in the market and working every day. I personally can't wait to get my Epic cameras!!!

 

[Tim Morten]

Roger Deakins recently stated in his board DR is too much important for him in digital cinema..If he says he's going to use alexa in his next project because of better DR are you guys going to attack him ? just weird..
We all know big DP's only care about DR not RESOLUTION.Am i completely wrong about this?

A few comments:
- As discussed previously in other threads, Deakins is anti-Red (has said he would prefer to shoot 16 than shoot Red). Obviously he is at the top of his craft, and I'm in no position to disagree with him, but there are definitely a wide range of opinions out there. Roger's happens to be passionately anti-Red for whatever reason.
- Each project has its own artistic needs. Sometimes resolution is important to the look, sometimes it isn't.
- Even when resolution isn't important from an aestheic perspective, there are arguably other benefits that come from acquiring at the highest resolution practical (ability to distribute on future formats that exceed HD without looking blurry by comparison, lower noise when down-rezzed, techniques for greater effective DR when down-rezzed, etc).

There have been a seemingly endless number of "does resolution matter" threads, so I don't know that a full-on rehash is productive, but take whatever opinion you will... my own opinion (even though Roger Deakins doesn't seem to feel this way) is that YES, resolution matters.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Michael Olsen]

Roger Deakins recently stated in his board DR is too much important for him in digital cinema..If he says he's going to use alexa in his next project because of better DR are you guys going to attack him ?

Absolutely not. Just as no one has made any derogatory remarks towards Arri in this thread (at least not that I remember reading). He would be totally justified in making that decision, just as he would be to use RED if he needed resolution, or film if he just wanted to shoot on film. It's his call.

There is some contention about the test carried out by Mr. Charters, though. It was presented as a "test" of the cameras, but was not really a very optimal way of doing that. Hooking two cameras up to a monitor and then filming it with a cell-phone handycam just isn't good enough. And then Mr. Charters made some pretty strong statements like "at least 3 stops more DR" and "more DR by a mile". That may be what he is seeing all throughout the process from monitoring and acquisition and into post. I have no idea. But it doesn't ring true with a lot of people around here.

Had he said "DR and onset viewing is extremely important to me, and I feel Alexa gives me the path of least resistance to achieve those goals" I doubt there would have such an uproar. People would have posted solutions on how things could be more easily reached with RED, perahps, but I doubt people would make an effort to call him out because that would be his opinion, which he is more than entitled to. Instead, he posted a very unscientific "test" to address issues which can be much more objectively measured and compared.

Posting 1-to-1 clips and statistics as was done in this post is more what people need to see from numerous different sources, repeated over and over (that is, after all, how something can be verified). It seems the results are a bit different. People have recognized the DR advantage and have no problem conceding it as a benefit for Alexa, but I (and it seems others) certainly can't see an extra 3+ stops nor a "mile" difference. On this same test, Mr. Charters notes the Alexa is "way up on DR".

Then again, I don't have either of these cameras in front of me, so what does my opinion matter? :beer:

 

[Álex Montoya]

Resolution matters, of course. I don't think Deakins would be glad shooting SD with 16 stops of latitude.

So, if resolution matters, what effective resolution is the minimal necessary for a film with theatrical distribution?

Is 1500 horizontal pixels enough?

 

[Adam Nielson]

Awesome work guys!

 

[Daniel García]

Hold on, did Rodney Charters say Alexa is way "up on DR" vs. MX based on the DSC chart Jim posted? I can barely see half a stop difference! How is that "Way up"? Maybe I am missing something?

Please don't take declarations out of context.

Mr Charters is talking about his own preliminary tests http://vimeo.com/13352311

Although I expect him not to jump to conclusions based on the monitoring path and compare results after a proper post process.

 

[Erich Ocean]

So, if resolution matters, what effective resolution is the minimal necessary for a film with theatrical distribution?

Is 1500 horizontal pixels enough?

Yes. Toy Story (highest grossing film of 1995) was mastered at a horizontal resolution of 1536.

It's hard to argue with success.

 

[Chris Pickle]

Resolution matters to camera manufactures as a point of continued progress. We all welcome that advancement. But it has less importance to any given filmmaker at any given moment when they are just trying to get their project off the ground. It's important, but they live in the here & now. This debate as it pertains to the evolution in general and Red's future plans in the specific is incredibly valid, but arguing about what a single filmmaker thinks at a single moment in time, and as a function of making their next film...

 

[John DeBoer]

There is some contention about the test carried out by Mr. Charters, though. It was presented as a "test" of the cameras, but was not really a very optimal way of doing that. Hooking two cameras up to a monitor and then filming it with a cell-phone handycam just isn't good enough. And then Mr. Charters made some pretty strong statements like "at least 3 stops more DR" and "more DR by a mile". That may be what he is seeing all throughout the process from monitoring and acquisition and into post. I have no idea. But it doesn't ring true with a lot of people around here.

People on this board need to slow down on the flame wars. This was a video of the test, NOT the test. It was the fact that he could see more highlights on the on set monitor that had him excited. As Rodney states:

Look I have to let peeps see something on the monitor all the time these days and if we are trying to see out a window I want to know that its there as well and not have to continuously answer the question will I see that? We always knew it was there on film but could never see it on the tap now in a digital realm I want to see what I am getting not wonder and wait for the DIM to show me a clip which no one else sees

I think Rodney does not require defending, so will not enter into that conversation.

However, as someone who has been on more tests than 99% of the world, I am VERY concerned that now no one will post tests on the net. Why bother? Why not just keep any opinions to themselves? The cinematographic community has always prided itself on the fact that DOPs share information, which helps the craft develop. I have learned so much from the hundreds of hours I have been on set testing, and have learned so much from the DOPs who have invited me to do so. I fervently hope that such tests continue, without all the retoric.

It will be a truly sad day when DOPs stop posting tests, and keep opinions to themselves for fear of flame wars and attacks on their personal integrity.

'nough said.....

John DeBoer
SIM Video

 

[Tico Llaurador]

I'll take all the resolution a camera can give me so I have the flexibility to make the image as soft or as sharp as I need it to be through the selection of adequate optics to help me tell the visual side of a story as close as possible to the way I see it in my mind's eye. Not that there's anything wrong with that!

 

[Jannard]

Any disrespectful post will be deleted.

Jim

 

[Michael Olsen]

However, as someone who has been on more tests than 99% of the world, I am VERY concerned that now no one will post tests on the net. Why bother? Why not just keep any opinions to themselves?

Hi John,

I hope my statement didn't come off as disparaging of Mr. Charters. He is very accomplished in his own right, as well all know. And really, it has nothing to do with him professionally or personally. Anyone could have posted this test and the same comments would still apply - Hitchcock, Scorsese, or my next door neighbor Bob.

I was simply attempting to recount how his test was presented and the issues which people - very legitimately, I feel - picked with it. I then contrasted it with a test like the one posted here which, I feel, is much more objective.

Jim didn't give us a video or picture of the charts on his monitor. He gave us the charts. And he didn't give us a video or picture of the resolution. He gave us the readouts.

As I said, I can't account for what Mr. Charters actually saw. No-one who wasn't there can, because its all lost in translation to video. And that is part of the point. The posted test doesn't really show anyone anything because of its method, aside from what can be heard. And that could have been easily written in a post: "Just did comparison shots of Alexa and RED M-X. Found Alexa to have at least three stops more DR on the monitor under set conditions."

I am all for DPs posting tests, along with their observations and commentary. I have and continue to read many and always enjoyed the learning process. But I would wish that they post their tests (as is almost always done - this is by far an exception to the rule) using methods which allow direct observation and meaningful commentary by those who may read them. That would include 100% crops of the shots, or raw and edited "negative" video, along with important technical information - ISO, LUT settings, etc. I don't consider cell-phone recorded vimeo compression such a method. At least not right now.

I apologize to everyone if this has diverged too far from the topic at hand and beaten too many dead horses - it's my last words on the matter.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

whats all the talk about too much resolution..

Id just soften up the picky actors with a nice promist

 

[John DeBoer]

No offense, yours was not really one I had a problem with. It was more the feeling several DPs have mentioned over the last few months.....tests almost always start now with "please do not post this anywhere, or show it elsewhere". This is only counter productive to learning the art of cinematography.

PS....I agree that it should have been presented as "this is the outputs to the onset monitor and I see more on the Arri", but as you may notice, Rodney never posted it on REDUSER, so could not clarify his reasoning. It is clarified lower down on the discussion on the vimeo feed.

John DeBoer
SIM Video.

 

[John DeBoer]

Any disrespectful post will be deleted.

Jim

Thank You Jim. (If that was directed at my post....lol)

I want to congradulate RED on the fact they have (purposely I assume) stayed out of the rhetoric on some of these threads. Testing helps us all...even if we don't agree on the methods. And thanks for the EPIC pics.....can't wait!!

John DeBoer
SIM Video

 

[sergio arguello]

which is more important for Red,DR or Resolution?

well if you know how to light and especially expose a film stock either neg and especially pos stock then i would say resolution.Now if you plan to build the camera point and shoot without to much lighting then all the DR you can get will be helpful.

be very careful DP's that scream "more DR" because IMHO its the beginning of the end of our job and looks will be post established by your colorist du jour.

just saying

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Yes - got to ignore film too, especially 65mm and IMAX as they have too much resolution. I think we're seeing the start of the "back to SD" movement.

Graeme

I'm in !!!

I'm tired stocking those 4K images...too much space.
320X240 is perfect balance
square pixels please.

Antoine

 

[Antoine Fabi]

whats all the talk about too much resolution..

Id just soften up the picky actors with a nice promist

Yep Zakaree,

...and it will look incredibly nicer and natural than blocky lack of resolution.

Antoine