I see, didn't realize we were comparing standard 16mm to Super16. It's a bit of a dual-edged sword though--at this point no-one would shoot standard 16 unless for an effect, so that footage is all going to be both shot on older, inferior film stocks and having suffered a bit of aging. Thus a modern retransfer would still be showing the age of the material.

Well anyway, let's get this one back on track. I for one am looking forward to seeing and using Alexa!

charles good luck i will never get the chance.

(insert sad-faced emoticon here)

Telecines have improved a lot since the days of "All Creatures Great and Small", as have the film stocks. A editor friend did a telecine of an old BBC drama film insert from around that period to be inserted into a new series of a drama and there was a big improvement over the old TK of that film.

The Peter Sellers film could be Kodachrome, which is a projection contrast stock and that gives problems in shadow detail. It was an issue with the reversal stocks that were used for shooting news and current affairs, plus the lower budget programmes.

Some how this location film cutting to studio video always seems more blunt on the comedy programmes. Ideally they should be one or the other, but reality in the days of 2" Quad VTRs. plus having large expensive TV studios, which to be utilized, meant mixing the two mediums. In the 1980's, there was the option of shooting on a portable 1" VTR, although editing costs would've been high, since you could only do an on-line edit. In the end, this would've come down to economics, they used to reuse the Quad VTR tapes and many programmes were lost over the years.

This thread got me thinking about how or what makes film look better or more magic to
the human eye, and how ARRI's new camera could put it over the edge.
Breaking it down to the microscopic, is it that film which uses layers of
silver halide salt crystals which are 3 dimensional cubic in shape and blend the colors in
emulsion layers, compared to digital pixels which are flat and blend the
colors on their edges? Does the ARRI utilize a different type of pixel,
octagonal or 3 dimensional in shape?
I looked around but couldn't find any specs on the ARRI's 'newly developed CMOS sensor'.

Here's Rodney Charters (24) talking about the Alexa.


The two frame thing at the beginning refers to the dual gain architecture of the sensor, not HDR.

Let me chime in as an upcoming Producer/DP from the new generation. I have never worked with film, ever, turned down every 35 job that came my way. Bear that in mind when evaluating these comments.

The choice was absolutely not one of aesthetics or any flavor of picture quality, but one of workflow. What I see in digital acquisition is a revolution of process that cuts labor, time, and inevitably, people, out of the equation. Smaller cameras, smaller lights, smaller crew, and a little CGI set extension means a much lower budget for a comparable product. I know that at the top of the game, for the big hollywood features, equipment budget maybe isn't an issue. But here in the middle, if I cut 20% of the budget without cutting 20% of the final product, that goes to the bottom line.

While I respect and appreciate RED for fueling the fire of digital cinema, I have yet to enjoy any experience with the RED One. I find the workflow extremely cumbersome, especially the buggy post-production. Picture quality typically comes down to lenses and lighting; the RED or any other high end camera is not going to magically add production value just by mere presence. Those cameras can fight for whatever 3K 4K 19K moniker they want, but I have yet to work on a project where raw resolution was the bottleneck.

What I'm really trying to say is that digital acquisition has found its place in the new workflows. Film cameras will persist where the old process prevails, and that's in most studio features. Once the digital distribution process becomes more streamlined, I think you'll see film acquisition start to step out of the light, but we're talking at least a decade in this country.

Interestingly enough, other countries such as China and India that are just now getting theaters are getting them in the all-digital flavor. And the bulk of film revenue comes from international small-screen sales and other non-theater income. Suffice to say, the industry is in flux. Of course, content is (and always will be) king.

With the 35mm sensor cameras the crew size stays pretty much the same as with 35mm film cameras. Even with 35mm film you could go off and shoot material on your own. Any savings are in film stock and the lab costs, although other costs may come into the equation, which may off set these savings.

The RAW workflows are different to traditional video workflows and they tend be more time consuming with the rendering. I suspect this is why HDCAM SR will continue to be used and this is an option with the Alexa.

I wouldn't throw out time just for the sake of it; thinking time one of the important creative elements and is often lost when working on a production, resulting in people tending to fall back onto how they've always done something.

Looks like the Alexa will be offering ProRes 4:2:2 and 4:4:4.

ARRI Alexa Camera: Digital Cinematic Bliss | Gizmodo Australia

The brochure for anyone interested.

http://www.arridigital.com/sites/def...20Brochure.pdf

Seems it's modular, but going about it in a different way to RED.

"Just now getting theatres?" Not true. Adding more multiplexes? True. All-digital flavor? True, but most of them are in MPEG4 crunched mode, not DCI compliant (Not that it's perfect). The advantage is in saving costs and fighting piracy - the "experience" is secondary. But isn't that true all over the world? Money is the biggest star.

Most theatres in India have sad sound systems and poor projectors - and the cinema halls are as large as stadiums. I recently watched Avatar (3D) in IMAX and than again at another "great" multiplex. The difference was humiliatingly tangible. But people here don't watch movies for art's sake, it's the actors they want to see, and actors look good on 35mm, not in any kind of HD.

Why? Maybe the entire pipeline has to come through, not just the DP.

I met a businessman once who said to me: "Why reinvent the wheel? The man who gives people what they want will make far more money; and it's as risk-free as it gets." This is what ARRI has been doing. They are just introducing HD cameras to recapture the market that was once theirs, and they will succeed. Brand loyalty means a lot.

Red One has a great fan following, and it has the potential - but only time will tell how loyal its customers will be when something new comes along.

When you always compare a product with an ideal, people will still want the ideal. Hence HD vs 35mm. Redefine Ideal.

At last somebody listened!
 

Right out of the box you can bypass the raw workflow - addressing Red's major shortcoming of having to use raw even for a web project - making it the first digital film camera for everyday use.
Actually with the ProRes444 option, many would opt to forgo Raw even for serious projects.

I guess the choice of SXS was decided before CFast was an option but I have a question that the brochure fails to address:
Can Alexa record 1080 60p on SXS and if yes why Sony cameras can't?

In general a very well thought camera and for the European market, very competitive priced if you consider the Arri brand leverage in after sales support.



PS1. The choice of ProRes is a major blow for the Avid camp, unless of course there are more recording options in the future.

PS2. Arri camera bundled with Fujinon lenses!!! A true sign of our (financial) times.

Seems there may be announcement at NAB regarding Avid.

Given the market sector the camera is targeting, that makes sense. Although, when does that always apply.

According to Mike Curtis (hd4indies through PVC) Alexa can record ProRes 444(4) 2K @ 60p on the SXS cards.
Also he was very impressed from Alexa's footage, a remarkable declaration , considering his chronic Red infatuation.

Has anybody else attended the presentation to confirm any of the above?

In the TVBeurope site there was and additional piece of information beyond the usual reciting:

"The Alexa is currently being used to shoot ‘Anonymous’, a movie directed by Roland Emmerich. Before deciding to use the Alexa, there was a side-by-side test against the new Red Mysterium X sensor. Although the Red is rated at a lower ISO (320) than the Alexa, both produced virtually noise-free pictures at 800 ISO, however, they found that the Alexa could be pushed further – even at four stops underexposed (the equivalent of 12,800 ISO)"

Sounds like DSLR low light capability in a digital cinema package.