Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

MX vs Alexa

Gunleik,

looking forward to your comparison test results.

Harry,

of course there is a room for Alexa and any other camera too, no doubts.

"Before you decide to have sex you should know some facts." :laugh:
 
I am definitely looking forward to seeing how the MX stands up in the tests compared to Alexa just for information's sake alone, but, in point of fact, Alexa will never be a possibility for us and little indie features. We just can't afford to buy one, and since we shoot over periods of about four months at a time, we certainly can't afford to rent one, either.

For better or worse, we're a RED shop for now. And we've got no complaints on that score at all.

:-)

Stephen
 
My impression is that Alexa is focused on solving today's problems in a way that's comfortable for conservative producers/DPs. Meanwhile, Red is seriously questioning basic assumptions about how to design a camera, and in the process is inventing the future of cinema. This holds true across a wide range of areas:

- Resolution -- Epic's 5K vs. Alexa's 1080p (and 3K raw).

- Frame rate -- Epic's 120 fps vs. Alexa's 60.

- Controls -- Alexa's (supposedly very nice) button/menu system vs. Epic's touch screen and detachable wireless remote.

- Form factor -- Epic's modular system vs. Alexa's traditional cine form factor.

- Recording format -- Red's compressed on-board raw vs. Alexa's on-board ProRes or external uncompressed raw.

- Price -- Red seems to be pricing its cameras as the technology allows and shooting for volume, whereas Arri seems to be pricing more according to the traditional industry model of We have a small number of customers, and they have deep pockets -- what can we get away with charging them?

- Red's interest in autofocus, building electronic lenses, on-board HDR, the wirelessly accessible H.264 proxy module, etc.

I understand why some people want something like Alexa, but I certainly know which of these approaches I prefer....
 
Chris Kenny said:
My impression is that Alexa is focused on solving today's problems in a way that's comfortable for conservative producers/DPs. Meanwhile, Red is seriously questioning basic assumptions about how to design a camera, and in the process is inventing the future of cinema. This holds true across a wide range of areas:

- Resolution -- Epic's 5K vs. Alexa's 1080p (and 3K raw).

- Frame rate -- Epic's 120 fps vs. Alex's 60.

- Controls -- Alexa's (supposedly very nice) button/menu system vs. Epic's touch screen and detachable wireless remote.

- Form factor -- Epic's modular system vs. Alexa's traditional cine form factor.

- Recording format -- Red's compressed on-board raw vs. Alexa's on-board ProRes or external uncompressed raw.

- Price -- Red seems to be pricing its cameras as the technology allows and shooting for volume, whereas Arri seems to be pricing more according to the traditional industry model of We have a small number of customers, and they have deep pockets -- what can we get away with charging them?

- Red's interest in autofocus, building electronic lenses, on-board HDR, the wirelessly accessible H.264 proxy module, etc.

I understand why some people want something like Alexa, but I certainly know which of these approaches I prefer....
Click to expand...

Great post; I second that opinion.

Three possible other factors to add, in deference to the Arri crowd:

- Latitude -- Some allege that Alexa has an edge here. From the chart post I looked at, the difference seems EXTREMELY minimal, but I look forward to more data here. And I also look forward to seeing Epic's HDR, which sounds like a huge advantage in the works for Red (but unclear how it might apply to R1-MX).

- Workflow -- Some allege that Alexa's workflow is head-and-shoulders above R3D. Common criticisms of R3D: "Oh my god, Red added new features that weren't magically supported by all the 3rd parties on the same day!" and "I insist on using legacy workflow X, and R3D should automagically fit into that instead of requiring me to change anything!". On the former point, Arri has just released Alexa (and it really is still Beta), so it's not clear whether they WILL offer new features at any point. If they do, they will undoubtedly encounter the same timing issues with 3rd parties (and if I know Arri, new features probably will not be free). On the latter point, Arri is generating a legacy format to appease those who fear change... marketing point to Arri (though it's been answered by Red to one extent with 264, and may be further answered with other modules the future). IMO, the native R3D support that is now available across Adobe, Avid, Assimilate, DaVinci, etc. makes this moot, but I know that there are those who disagree.

- Look -- This is a subjective determination which is subtly (and not-so-subtly) impacted by many factors. I've already seen some expressions of love for Arri's image over Red's (and vice-versa)... this is a tough one to debate given that it is SO subjective, but it's a factor some will latch onto nonetheless - perhaps for the very reason that by nature of its subjectivity, they know they won't have to back down :).

And two to add for the Red side:

- Weight -- Alexa was described as "built like a tank", which could be appended to also say: "weighs as much as a tank". This is more marked versus Epic and Scarlet, but Alexa is no slender beauty -- I think "Bertha" might have been a more appropriate choice of names. Granted, this is an industry that still slings around 535's on a daily basis, but lighter weight is meaningful for location, for 3D, for Steadi, for ENG, wildlife, etc.

- Upgrades -- Sure, we all expect bug fixes. What was unexpected, unprecedented, and altogether wonderful, were the myriad of new features and improvements that Red has made FOR FREE over the life of R1. There may even be some more to come. Maybe Arri will follow suit for Alexa, but color me skeptical.

Anyhow, I really appreciate the circumspection that others are showing, and I can't wait to see the comparisons. Speaking for myself, I reserve the right to refer to the Alexa as "Meh-lexa" until I see something that makes me feel otherwise. :)
 
Tim Morten said:
On the former point, Arri has just released Alexa (and it really is still Beta), so it's not clear whether they WILL offer new features at any point. If they do, they will undoubtedly encounter the same timing issues with 3rd parties (and if I know Arri, new features probably will not be free).
Click to expand...

Arri has already stated that as new features are enabled in Alexa, they will be made available to current customers via firmware at no additional cost. At lease for those features that are designed for the current model. So in this I think they are similar to Red, not over charging as you imply.

Their dependency on 3rd party software and how that eco system responds to new firmware updates will be an interesting thing to watch. Currently they have little of that interdependency due to both newness and their using existing standards (to a degree) rather than pioneer new territory as much as Red has.
 
Is it just me ?

Is it just me ?

jonnycom said:
We've been doing some side by side test with the Alexa and the MX. The Alexa is very impressive even in it's kinda beta state with no way to record anything on board, we are feeding a Kona 3 and recording Prores 444, the sensor is very good.

The 1080p resolution sucks especially for 3D but if they get a 4k sensor working watch out. The Arri is a lot heavier then the Red but that might be because of the crazy heat control system that is built in.

I will post some frames soon.
Click to expand...

Wait a second: The Alexa is even HEAVIER than the Red One ?
 
Just get the Epic out and that debate will be over really quick.... ;-P
 
Paul Nordin said:
Arri has already stated that as new features are enabled in Alexa, they will be made available to current customers via firmware at no additional cost. At lease for those features that are designed for the current model. So in this I think they are similar to Red, not over charging as you imply.

Their dependency on 3rd party software and how that eco system responds to new firmware updates will be an interesting thing to watch. Currently they have little of that interdependency due to both newness and their using existing standards (to a degree) rather than pioneer new territory as much as Red has.
Click to expand...

I've heard that the features Arri promised but which are not yet enabled will be free, but whether there are new innovations ahead (and whether those would be free) is an open question. I hadn't heard of that happening for the previous Arri digital cameras, but maybe I'm wrong. It would be great if they started to follow Red's lead!

Cheers,
Tim
 
axel ebermann said:
Wait a second: The Alexa is even HEAVIER than the Red One ?
Click to expand...

Yes. Alexa body weighs nearly 7 lbs. or 3kg MORE than the R1 body. For some reason people seem to not realize that... Could be the Arri is not very forthcoming with that bit of info in their marketing. As far as *cinema* cameras go, the RED One is actually not that big.

Although, I haven't heard anyone say they want to shoot Alexa because it's small... LOL

Anyway, I might get to shoot on an Alexa next week. We're set to shoot RED MX, but the director has a chance to bring in a beta Alexa and he's thinking of doing it, just to check it out. Fine by me, I guess. I've played with the Alexa at NAB and got a good hands on with it a while later in a demo session of sorts. Fine camera, really. Some of the RED crowd is too hard on it. Then again, Arri has some seriously devoted fanboys that are fully prepared to view the world through 1080p beer-goggles while insisting that ProRes is more than good enough. :biggrin:
 
lol...kind of remind me of Apple fanboys as well... ;-P
 
Just got back from screening Alexa vs. film in a DI suite. VERY impressive. Hard to tell the difference between the two; in fact on some shots Alexa looked better, certainly more noise free and clean. The colorist had no problem digging out detail from the digital footage in a similar way from the film scan.
The Hawk V-Lites looked terrific as well.
I don't know what else to say to those who would dismiss the Alexa... it's a fantastic tool, and another brush in the pallette as they say...
I love Red. But there ARE options in the world...
Cheers,
Harry
 
The thing about Alexa is this. They built a sensor that covers the super35 gate with fewer photosites than MX. Ok so, we know that larger photosites generally equal more dynamic range so it's really a fairly straight forward design trade off, resolution versus DR. It's not necessarily evidence that Arri has any better underlying technology than Red, in fact it may be clear evidence that they don't because the MX is coming close to the Alexa now. Things then don't bode well for Arri if the Monstro sensor, with larger Photosites is coming out soon and means a significant increase of DR over MX and more resolution options. Plus Redcode as we know it, which is super great, or Redcode 2.5:1 which sounds wonderful, and HDRx which sounds fierce :)

So frankly, while the Alexa seems like a really great camera, and the ProRes deliverables sounds like a really valuable option, I plan on using it when I think it's right for the client. But I don't think the Alexa bodes well for Arri, which is a shame because they are such a great company.

The real competition for Red, is, has been and will remain Canon.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10083101canonlargestsensor.asp

IBloom
 
Harry Clark said:
Just got back from screening Alexa vs. film in a DI suite. VERY impressive. Hard to tell the difference between the two; in fact on some shots Alexa looked better, certainly more noise free and clean. The colorist had no problem digging out detail from the digital footage in a similar way from the film scan.
The Hawk V-Lites looked terrific as well.
I don't know what else to say to those who would dismiss the Alexa... it's a fantastic tool, and another brush in the pallette as they say...
I love Red. But there ARE options in the world...
Cheers,
Harry
Click to expand...

Harry,

calm down a bit.

That was just a 2K from Alexa to print film.

This is ptimal standard when Alexa image can get its strengths.

BUT (this is really a big BUT and intentionally here).

Could you ask for the resizing of Alexa footage to 4K and then record it with the same Arri Film Print recorder.

Than a sort of shaking Alexa footage starts immediately in many wrong directions.

Maybe you should ask for 4K Alexa projection presentation in RAI Theater at the upcoming IBC Amsterdam.

But you'll not get that for sure.

Game over.
 
FWIW, Harry sounds calm to me... :). 4k versus 2k is the old "good enough" argument: definitely divided opinions on that one, and personally I do share Sanjin's perspective, but I acknowledge that some people seem to sincerely believe that 2k is "good enough".

Folks who have the luxury of painting with multiple brushes tend to be more forgiving... those of us who are looking to buy a single tool are going to be brutal: we HAVE to dismiss one or the other, because this is all about making a purchase decision.

So far, the balance is strongly in favor of Epic for my dollars, but I welcome all new information, and definitely look forward to seeing the results of the head-to-head tests against R1-MX.

Cheers,
Tim
 
Sanjin Jukic said:
Could you ask for the resizing of Alexa footage to 4K and then record it with the same Arri Film Print recorder.

Than a sort of shaking Alexa footage starts immediately in many wrong directions.
Click to expand...

:icon_bs:

I understand your intent, Sanjin... but your methodology is wrong. If the intent is to get a good-looking film print, then you do whatever the right thing is to deliver that film-print!

For RED, that would be to do a 4K Filmout on a 4K-capable Film Recorder.

For ALEXA or any other 2K camera, that would be to do a 2K Filmout. If you up-rez to 4K from any HD image before you film-out, that would unnecessarily degrade the image.

I have seen more film-out tests than I can count. I believe that strictly using film as a deliverable medium, there is not much advantage between a 2K and 4K acquisition. Some, yes.. but not a lot, and certainly not objectionable.

But the whole point of RED (in my opinion) is to lead the charge beyond film. So why we're discussing filmouts is sort of beyond me. : )

Lucas
 
Lucas Wilson said:
:icon_bs:

I understand your intent, Sanjin... but your methodology is wrong. If the intent is to get a good-looking film print, then you do whatever the right thing is to deliver that film-print!

For RED, that would be to do a 4K Filmout on a 4K-capable Film Recorder.

For ALEXA or any other 2K camera, that would be to do a 2K Filmout. If you up-rez to 4K from any HD image before you film-out, that would unnecessarily degrade the image.

I have seen more film-out tests than I can count. I believe that strictly using film as a deliverable medium, there is not much advantage between a 2K and 4K acquisition. Some, yes.. but not a lot, and certainly not objectionable.

But the whole point of RED (in my opinion) is to lead the charge beyond film. So why we're discussing filmouts is sort of beyond me. : )

Lucas
Click to expand...


:willy_nilly: I wouldn't say that is :icon_bs:

Always must read again and again

PART III : THE PRODUCTION CHAIN: DOES 4K LOOK BETTER THAN 2K ?

"Why, then, is a 4K digital process still a good idea, even
though it cannot reproduce full 4K image information?
The answer is simple, according to the Heynacher Integral
(the area beneath the MTF curve), the perception
of sharpness depends on the modulation of coarse local
frequencies. When these are transferred with a higher
modulation, the image is perceived as sharp. Figure 21
shows the results of a 2K and 4K scan.

Figure_21.jpg


Because a 4K scan offers not only more resolution, but
also more modulation in lower local frequencies, the
resulting 4K images will be perceived as being sharper.
When this data is recorded out in 4K on Fuji RDI, for
example, it produces the results shown in Fig. 22.

Figure_22.jpg


Summary Part III

A 4K workflow is advantageous for DI and film archiving.
The MTF characteristics seen in 4K scanning will
transfer coarse detail (which determines the perception
of sharpness) with much more contrast than 2K
scanning. It is therefore irrelevant whether or not the
resolution limit of the source material is resolved. It is
very important that the available frequency spectrum is
transferred with as little loss as possible"


Writen by Dr. Hans Kiening, ARRI 4K technology White papers>>>>pages 18-19>>>

Spatial Resolution

Scanning resolution is one key issue when it comes to scanner performance.
Many tests and demonstrations have been done to show the ultimate resolution of film.
Most scanning is currently carried out at 2K resolution, i.e. the image is sampled with 2048 pixels per line.
For comparison, HDTV has 1920 pixels per line. 4K (4096 pixels per line) scans are sometimes performed for VFX,
and some productions, Spider Man 2 for example, have been done entirely in this format.
Looking at the digital files in Figure 3.1, a 4K scan definitely contains more details than a 2K scan.
The trade-offs are scanning time per frame, data transfer times, and processing costs.
Care needs to taken that no aliasing appears in the scans. In digital imaging, aliasing is a term used when patterns are created
in an image that were not in the original. It can be avoided by resampling to a lower spatial resolution with a digital filter or by an optical filter.
Optical anti-aliasing filter, however, tend to produce less sharp images.


Figure 3.1. Comparison between 2K and 4K resolution.
image2k4k.jpg

Both images are enlarged portions scaled to the same size.
The 4K image on the right hand side displays more visible details and appears to be sharper than the 2K image on the left.
Although, viewed in a projection, the differences may be less noticeable.


Written by Harald Brendel, Arnold & Richter Cine Technik GmbH & Co Betriebs KG, Chapter 3.1. General Concepts>>>

More or less you can find all the answers at those two ARRi documents.

I can't get WTF Alexa marketing campaign think about those two documents above.

Why we would need 4K acquisition?

Mostly for this fact that is so called a future proof archival of master material:

Economic models comparing long-term storage costs of film versus digital materials
show that the annual cost of preserving film archival master material is $1,059 per title 1,
and the annual cost of preserving a 4K digital master is $12,514,2 an 11-fold difference.
The annual preservation costs for a complete set of digital motion picture source materials
also are substantially higher than those for film, and all digital asset storage requires
significant and perpetual spending to maintain accessibility.

Quoted from:
THE DIGITAL DILEMMA
STRATEGIC ISSUES IN ARCHIVING AND ACCESSING DIGITAL MOTION PICTURE MATERIALS
by
THE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COUNCIL
OF THE
ACADEMY OF MOTION PICTURE ARTS AND SCIENCES

LINK>>>


1 Based on a monthly cost of 40 cents per 1,000 foot film reel in preservation conditions
plus the amortized cost of film archive element manufacture.
 
"...according to the Heynacher Integral (the area beneath the MTF curve), the perception of sharpness depends on the modulation of coarse local frequencies..."

Of course, I hear that all the time from audiences lining up at the cinema, deciding what film they want to see that evening. :rolleyes5:
 
Of course, I hear that all the time from audiences lining up at the cinema, deciding what film they want to see that evening.
Click to expand...

Well before viewing the film yes, but I often hear people at the end of the movie wondering why it was blurred all the time... or after a digital projection, people amazed by the sharpness...
 
Is 1080p/2K enough for deliverables? Today, yes, for most purposes. But the idea that your camera should shoot at the same resolution as your highest quality final deliverable format is precisely the sort of traditional industry thinking that Arri is still embracing (this is how video cameras have always historically worked; they've been built around the deliverable formats of the day), but Red has moved beyond.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top