2.8 Arri Raw vs 3.2 pro res

P

PIMP

Well-known member
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:
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.)
 
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).
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Thank you! :smile:

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.
 
filmguy123 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top