Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New arri camera at IBC

Irri said:
I'm not sure if that is true...

From the D21:
During the down sampling process, the pixels are taken from the 2880 x 1620 area of the full sensor, then down scaled by 1.5 for 1920 x 1080

From the A:
For example, 2880 x 1620 sensor pixels are down sampled to 1920 x 1080 for the HD outputs, or 3072 x 1728 sensor pixels are down sampled to 2048 x 1152 for a 16:9 2k DI
Click to expand...

Still 3072 > 2880 though.

But what's the 3.5k about then? Maybe time will tell...

Graeme
 
Graeme Nattress said:
Still 3072 > 2880 though.

But what's the 3.5k about then? Maybe time will tell...

Graeme
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's for a 2K pipeline. Maybe the extra pixels are for the area around the viewfinder which they didn't need for the D21 as it had an optical one.
 
Chris Pickle said:
from Arri "In our extensive discussions with cinematographers it was clear that the camera's sensitivity and contrast range are more essential than having more pixels."

I've believed this all along. The pixel wars seem silly with the only caveat being--once we achieve a base minimum amount. We can debate what the number is and how much we want to pay for incremental increases, but above that minimum, I want sensitivity and range instead of more pixels.

At some point more pixels becomes a diminished return. Imagine a kick-ass 2k camera that delivers incredible 1080, and has no trouble at iso 800 and above and with loads of range. I have to believe that our images will benefit from those things instead of just more pixels.

Chris
Click to expand...

Oddly, the R1 seems to take a lot of heat for exactly the opposite... for "only" having an effective ~3.2K after proper low-pass filtering to avoid aliasing.

Not that you personally have levied such criticisms, but clearly resolution is important to a lot of people as well.

-sc
 
Steven Caesare said:
Oddly, the R1 seems to take a lot of heat for exactly the opposite... for "only" having an effective ~3.2K after proper low-pass filtering to avoid aliasing.

Not that you personally have levied such criticisms, but clearly resolution is important to a lot of people as well.

-sc
Click to expand...

I understand, and to Graeme's point as well... That's why I added the caveat of once we achieve enough. I think what's enough is a valid debate, as long as it also includes "for what output", otherwise, some will say more pixels is always better. I don't pretend to know what might be enough pixels for every possible scenario-- theatre, FX, TV, etc.

And I think resolution is important to everyone, it's just how much, and what order of want after minimum is reached.

One thing I didn't realize, or maybe it's still a tad theoretical, is that you can trade pixels for range. Or maybe the trade is a lot of pixels for a little range...

I know it's not the same, but Ken Rockwell has talked about the pixel wars in DSLR and he figures that 6mp is about the threshold where anything above is redundant in most cases. I may be butchering his point so... but the idea stuck with me. The poor buyer in Best Buy looking at cameras only in terms of pixel size and never chip size. He sees all the different Canon cameras below a 5D with all the different prices and doesn't realize they all share the same sensor as the entry level Rebel.

Anyway, got a bit off topic, but for me, I've never thought the Red didn't have enough resolution, but I did wish it had more range and was faster. I understand the new stuff coming from Red will address that.

Chris
 
The ARRIs will use good OLPFs too, at least I should think so after speaking to their engineering guys. They know about sampling theory too :-). Even with a good OLPF, their 3k will give 2.4k or so measured resolution, so more than you'd get from a HD camera - just like little Scarlet - more rez than HD, really nice HD image when downsampled to HD. I don't have any problems with ARRI engineering.

Graeme
 
It's going to be a rock-solid choice, in my opinion.
Another tool in the toolbox.
It will be great to see some test footage projected.
Cheers,
Harry
 
...the following measurements were made comparing the new ARRI digital camera prototype to a competitive camera used for digital cinematography.

I wonder wich one they call competitive.

Pat
 
Chris Pickle said:
I understand, and to Graeme's point as well... That's why I added the caveat of once we achieve enough. I think what's enough is a valid debate, as long as it also includes "for what output", otherwise, some will say more pixels is always better. I don't pretend to know what might be enough pixels for every possible scenario-- theatre, FX, TV, etc.

And I think resolution is important to everyone, it's just how much, and what order of want after minimum is reached.

One thing I didn't realize, or maybe it's still a tad theoretical, is that you can trade pixels for range. Or maybe the trade is a lot of pixels for a little range...

I know it's not the same, but Ken Rockwell has talked about the pixel wars in DSLR and he figures that 6mp is about the threshold where anything above is redundant in most cases. I may be butchering his point so... but the idea stuck with me. The poor buyer in Best Buy looking at cameras only in terms of pixel size and never chip size. He sees all the different Canon cameras below a 5D with all the different prices and doesn't realize they all share the same sensor as the entry level Rebel.

Anyway, got a bit off topic, but for me, I've never thought the Red didn't have enough resolution, but I did wish it had more range and was faster. I understand the new stuff coming from Red will address that.

Chris
Click to expand...

Understood. Devlopments on all 3 fronts, again appreciating there will be different output needs, are indeed exciting.

-sc
 
I will take better color and more dynamic range over resolution any day. It will be interesting to see the new Arri cameras. Sounds like they won't hit the market till mid-next year (about the same time as Epic?).

Arri engineering is solid, and I expect these cameras will make nice pictures.
 
Camera cmparison

Camera cmparison

...the following measurements were made comparing the new ARRI digital camera prototype to a competitive camera used for digital cinematography.
Click to expand...


That's very interesting.. there is also a thread about D-21 on CML today, and a statement made there is RED-ONE is about a stop faster than the D-21.

So O.K, that's a judgement about an existing RED ONE v's an existing D-21 and may not be representative of a next generation Arri sensor's performance.

But it's only far to say the Mysterium sensor - as in RED ONE - isn't representative of Mysterium-X's low light and dynamic range performance either.


It'll undoubtably be a good camera though, competition keeps us on our toes.
 
Stuart English said:
But it's only far to say the Mysterium sensor - as in RED ONE - isn't representative of Mysterium-X's low light and dynamic range performance either.
Click to expand...

A very good point. The new Arri cameras are in the Epic price range and time frame so shouldn't really be compared to the Red One.
 
Patrick Tresch said:
...the following measurements were made comparing the new ARRI digital camera prototype to a competitive camera used for digital cinematography.

I wonder wich one they call competitive.

Pat
Click to expand...

Hmmm, which other camera has a stated dynamic range of 11.3 stops...let me see now...:idea:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top