Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. Collapse Details
    2.8 Arri Raw vs 3.2 pro res
    #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    LOS ANGELES
    Posts
    824
    Default
    So I am in the market for an Arri Alexa or arri Amira. The specs are obviously better on the Amira but it is also 12k more then the classic camera. I own a odyssey 7q so I could pay 500 and shoot Arri Raw 2.8 if I were to get the Alexa. My question is there a major quality difference between 2.8 raw and 3.2 pro res? To justify the xtra cash?
    Last edited by PIMP; 02-08-2019 at 04:00 PM.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,964
    Default
    No, absolutely not. Hundreds of the best-of-the-best films were shot @2.8K (and below!) before any UHD upscaling was ever introduced, and no one would ever notice a difference.

    For that amount of extra money and neither of them are actually 4K...would be insane to personally pay that! (If a studio is buying it, who cares.)


    1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    LOS ANGELES
    Posts
    824
    Default
    Thanks


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,964
    Default
    P.S. You probably would like something now or soon, but I think this is going to be the first year or maybe 2020 where you'll see more ARRIs on the used market.

    For the last 10 years there was no point for anyone to sell any of their models with an ALEV III sensor, but now that the LFs are making their way out (which have two ALEV IIIs in it for the 4K), I expect to see more classics (maybe not minis yet because of their convenience).


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    #5
    Member Aharon Rothschild's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Brooklyn NY
    Posts
    30
    Default
    Shooting arriraw is the way to go... https://youtu.be/ffOOE_e1U8Y.
    Also you can shoot prores to the internal cards as well as raw on the oddessey for dailies that will conform correctly except for the first frame of every clip.
    possibleimpossible.com


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    158
    Default
    So resolution-wise you're looking at this:

    2880*1620 = 4.666 Megapixels
    3200*1800 = 5.760 Megapixels (about 25% more resolution than 2.8k)

    I don't know if the Odyssey can do 4:3 Arriraw at this time, but if it can, you could get more or similar resolution than 3.2k prores if you're shooting anamorphic:

    2880*2160 = 6.221 Megapixels (about 8% more resolution than 3.2k) - 1.3x or 1.5x anamorphic
    2578*2160 = 5.568 Megapixels (about 3% less resolution than 3.2k) - 2x anamorphic


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    140
    Default
    I think AMIRA might have the edge if you’re are interested in shooting HFR. My understanding is the AMIRA Premium license is capable of shooting 2K ProRes XQ 4444 at 200fps whereas the ALEXA Classic EV with high speed license is only capable of shooting 2K ProRes HQ 4:2:2 at 120fps. I have seen a skilled colorist work wonders with those 4444 files but you would have to decide for yourself how valuable that difference is.

    I know ARRI has been attacked for their fake 4K but the 3.2K ProRes 4444 XQ files have been apparently been good enough for a number high end productions including Game of Thrones. Apparently the GOT team has only shot RAW for especially effects heavy scenes and have generally shot the 3.2K ProRes for almost everything else. ARRI did release a paid update last year that allows the AMIRA to shoot ARRIRAW internally so that might something to keep in mind if you have your heart set on capturing RAW.

    It’s a shame Convergent Design hasn’t announced ProRes RAW support for the Odyssey 7Q. It would be a killer option that I think lots of AlEXA Classic owners would gladly pay a few thousand to have. It might even put me in the market for a used ALEXA.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    4,238
    Default
    Don't know who downvoted Norbro, but as someone with 0 Arri Experience, I will say that what he said is spot on from my general experience.

    Got a 4K HDR tv and blu ray last fall and got a handful of discs to go with it. From my research of discs, there are VERY few films actually mastered in 4k. Almost everything is an upscale of 2.8k-3k content at best. A TON of stuff is an upscale of 2K mastered content. This includes some of the best demo discs, such as Revenant, Blade Runner 2049, Avengers...

    And while I really enjoy my demo worthy 4K Blu-Ray discs, even on a 75" sitting 10 feet away upscaled HD content still looks great. In fact, as long as the bitrate of HD content is high, it can be difficult to determine a 4K master playing at native 4K vs a native 2K file being uspcaled by the TV itself. People, self included, are much more prone to noticing the specifics of the content (ie film grain in certain discs, the look of the content itself, etc.) than any difference in resolution.

    I've also found that in my own work, 2K content upscales really well even by just doubling the size in Adobe and rendering it out as a 4K file. My GH4 content shot in HD still looks great even when being upscaled on a big screen TV.

    This was all a long way of saying, what NorBro said. If I was personally in the market, there is no way I would trade RAW capability for a slight uptick in resolution from 2.8k to 3.2k. With either resolution, you are set to master in 2K/HD. The capabilities you'll gain in improving the underlying image via RAW would seem to me to vastly outweigh a little extra resolution, especially at the expense of flexibility.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    4,964
    Default
    Thank you!

    At the end of the day everyone has to do what's best for them, but paying $12,000 more for that minor difference (on paper and on the screen, IMO) sounds so crazy to me.


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    970
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by filmguy123 View Post
    Don't know who downvoted Norbro, but as someone with 0 Arri Experience, I will say that what he said is spot on from my general experience.

    Got a 4K HDR tv and blu ray last fall and got a handful of discs to go with it. From my research of discs, there are VERY few films actually mastered in 4k. Almost everything is an upscale of 2.8k-3k content at best. A TON of stuff is an upscale of 2K mastered content. This includes some of the best demo discs, such as Revenant, Blade Runner 2049, Avengers...

    And while I really enjoy my demo worthy 4K Blu-Ray discs, even on a 75" sitting 10 feet away upscaled HD content still looks great. In fact, as long as the bitrate of HD content is high, it can be difficult to determine a 4K master playing at native 4K vs a native 2K file being uspcaled by the TV itself. People, self included, are much more prone to noticing the specifics of the content (ie film grain in certain discs, the look of the content itself, etc.) than any difference in resolution.

    I've also found that in my own work, 2K content upscales really well even by just doubling the size in Adobe and rendering it out as a 4K file. My GH4 content shot in HD still looks great even when being upscaled on a big screen TV.

    This was all a long way of saying, what NorBro said. If I was personally in the market, there is no way I would trade RAW capability for a slight uptick in resolution from 2.8k to 3.2k. With either resolution, you are set to master in 2K/HD. The capabilities you'll gain in improving the underlying image via RAW would seem to me to vastly outweigh a little extra resolution, especially at the expense of flexibility.
    I think we need to be application specific in the analysis. For personal projects, clients who either don't have the funds or appreciate the education from a video expert, what you've said is fine.

    But none of this matters if the decision makers (those hiring you) aren't concerned and are willing to pay.

    I've been on shoots where the clients were more impressed with the fact a $100,000 camera package (alexa mini) was being used than the actual footage coming from it.

    You can charge more for items that cost more. Here, there are Alexa packages that can't be given away vs. the alexa mini is the most popular camera right now.

    I'm half owner in an inspire 2/x7 package. I LOVE the image from my phantom 4 pro+. But there's money to be made simply by offering a more premium option. The i2/x7 has been paid off and it will keep making money for us for a while.

    So if me, filmguy123, and norbro shoot our passion project, we'd be crazy to opt for unnecessarily expensive options. But for some purely doing business, you may be crazy not to go for the tools that cost more.

    Although it's not that black and white either. IDK what PIMP works on, it seems like he may be trying to sell passion projects, which makes things even more difficult.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •