as long as it can tell what and how that eyeball wants to see....
Alexa LF
- Thread starter roxics
- Start date
AndreeOnline
Veteran
I probably should have said that I didn't mean in terms of an explanation, but rather in the form of links to measurements or scans or other studies that show the difference…
Here's a 35mm film scan at 6k vs the Alexa XT from Steve Yedlin's demo. I'm not sure in what mode he shot the Alexa, but he calls it "about 3k":
The film scan doesn't come across as super resolved.
There are 2k and 4k film scan comparisons Zacuto did years ago that show quite a difference. Anyway I thought we have been past "2K is all we will ever need" for quite a while. Arri has just proven it by this thread title ...
BTW focus in the film times was NOT pulled from monitors-there was no way to do that with video assist..
BTW focus in the film times was NOT pulled from monitors-there was no way to do that with video assist..
Last edited:
AndreeOnline
Veteran
So Zacuto shot film and then scanned in two different resolutions, comparing the two? If that is the case, I'm sure there was a difference. But that says nothing about how that would compare to a 5k digital sensor. That's the thing you said that I wanted to clarify.
I also see a clear difference in my own footage between mastering in 4k and 2k, so I'm not disputing that. I do think however, that realistically, with moving images 2k is plenty for most image consumers in a normal home environment (at least up to 65" screens).
The fact alone that ARRI is launching a 4k camera doesn't prove much. Lots of strategic marketing at play there. That said, I'm pretty sure that it'll be an awesome image that is a notable upgrade from the ARRIs of today (apart from the 65).
Run&Gun
Veteran
The film scan also looks like a Betacam gained-up from 20 years ago. But the film scan does appear slightly sharper to me, at least on my monitor(15" RMBP). It may be a contrast thing. Looking at the eye and eyelid area, there appears to be more contrast which makes it seem sharper.
The micro contrast is high frequency MTF response which, ultimately, defines sharpness/resolution...
Nate Weaver
Veteran
The Alexa LF Basic Set is $98k. That includes EVF, LPL to PL adaptor, a few other basic items.
They have Pro Sets that go from 112k to 124k that include different types and different sizes of media.
The primes seem to center around $26k each, a few being cheaper and a few being more expensive.
Nate Weaver
Veteran
That would be 2.8K Arriraw.
The film looks sharper at first, but if you really start looking between the grains, you realize there's not as much there. Go try counting lower eyelashes on the Alexa frame, vs the film frame.
OK arguably. But what does that have to do with auto focus vs manual focus and "stupid" people not using or offering auto focus?
Here you go: https://www.google.com/search?q=fil...on+tests&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-1
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
Lots of interesting details here:
http://www.newsshooter.com/2018/02/02/arri-finally-goes-4k-with-the-alexa-lf/
Just like the Alexa 65 uses three 2.8k sensors seamlessly stitched together, the LF uses two. So you already know how the images from this will look.
Regarding adaptability of FF lenses: every FF lens will cover this sensor (it's wider than 36mm, but it's not as tall, so, the diagonal fits perfectly on a FF image circle). But if the focal flange distance is exactly identical to the EF mount, you can forget about easily adapting those. It can be done, but with a mount swap, not an adapter. Expect cine lenses offering this, but not for example the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.
And yes, the mount has electronic connections and will take note of lens, aperture, and probably focusing distance.
http://www.newsshooter.com/2018/02/02/arri-finally-goes-4k-with-the-alexa-lf/
Just like the Alexa 65 uses three 2.8k sensors seamlessly stitched together, the LF uses two. So you already know how the images from this will look.
Regarding adaptability of FF lenses: every FF lens will cover this sensor (it's wider than 36mm, but it's not as tall, so, the diagonal fits perfectly on a FF image circle). But if the focal flange distance is exactly identical to the EF mount, you can forget about easily adapting those. It can be done, but with a mount swap, not an adapter. Expect cine lenses offering this, but not for example the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.
And yes, the mount has electronic connections and will take note of lens, aperture, and probably focusing distance.
nutmegger
Well-known member
Arri has a number of short videos shot with the Alexa LF posted on their web site. The "Face to Face" video shows just how good this camera is with Arri's new Signature LF lenses. This camera/lens combo is a winner.
https://www.arri.com/largeformat/
Enjoy.
https://www.arri.com/largeformat/
Enjoy.
JPNola
Veteran
Okay, maybe I am just infected by the ARRI-camera mystique, but that footage looks stunning. And from what I can tell it is all shot in available light. It has a quality that I find much more appealing than most anything I see from RED cameras. Or is that just all in my mind??
NorBro
Major Contributor
That's a perfect skintones test for people...it's cool how you can see the lights moving in the eyeballs.
These people have been making cameras for 90+ years...they are just so good.
[There is a new RED short part of the collective series shot with the WEAPON (HELIUM 8K S35)...a different look but also super nice.]
These people have been making cameras for 90+ years...they are just so good.
[There is a new RED short part of the collective series shot with the WEAPON (HELIUM 8K S35)...a different look but also super nice.]
Looking forward to the price drops on secondhand Arri Alexa Classics!
I do wonder if those full frame PL lenses (such as from Sigma and Tokina) will cover the Alexa LF? Am guessing they will (maybe not technically perfect in the corners however, but some people might like that).
So basically a quarter of a million dollars once you've got the camera and a few lenses.
Still got to get tripod, rails, mattebox, cables, lights, etc.....
I bet if Netflix hadn't forced their hand, then Arri wouldn't have released this camera when they did.
Except maybe maybe in 10+ years time when they become affordable enough secondhand for mere mortals like us to buy it!
ha, please link to the juicest quotes from redusers!
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Im going to to tell you about stupidity - or at least tell you a little of my journey. I was really interested in pixel peeping in 2005 when my employer would not accept digital images only work shot on transparency (before I got into 'motion' I worked doing stills for glossy print magazines) - I had a big input in persuading them to 'go digital'.. with my 'new' 6k hasselblad camera and digital back.. so had to peep a lot of pixels.
Firstly.. Im very happy watching manually focussed 2/3k arriRaw at a movie theatre or at home - I dont personally feel the need for a lot more resolution than that. The lack of resolution of 2-3k does not take me outside the story in conventional movie making.
4k or 8k, are therefore to me somewhat pointless to me personally.. Until you enter the arena of the VFX/Crop to odd shapes/Deliver to multiple aspects where one may use only a small portion of the image to create ones final deliverable.
Now back to the reality of shooting 6k - well I spent a lot of time with that Hasselblad and I could not focus the damn thing - neither AF or manual - when I pixel peeped at 6k you would see I had hit the wrong eyelash.
Now you take that image focussed on the wrong eyelash and downscale it to the delivery 2k and.. well it looked sharp enough.. about as sharp as I was getting on film
So no one complained about my soft 'material'.. because it was as sharp as any scanned film I had ever delivered... but I knew 90% of it was soft because I peeped it on my Eizo.
Now still in the field - the (4k) nikon D3 came out and regularly outresolved my hasselblad.. because the AF worked better, then the (6k) 5d2 came out and the properly functioning AF and 6k started to create 'in the field' images that genuinely out resolved film scans.
Of course Im talking single frames - so people will not listen but there we go.
Anyway my basic conclusion was if you want to deliver high resolution images of moving subjects at wide Tstops the first challenge was focus.
My second conclusion was really that even the most skilled humans do not really have the ability to deliver this. Im not really saying Im personally skilled.. but not a total muppet.. having started out doing manual focus sports photography on film which is a good grounding in focus.
It would therefore seem to me 'stupid' to deliver a camera system with a large format sensor, high resolution capture and a set of T1.8 lenses without giving consideration to having that delivered hand in hand with an AF system that can at least 'tickle' the operator into the last few mm of focus, even if that human operator was doing 95% of the 'work'
--
I work today in some product situations, here I was testing my Fs7 under the conditions of cropping, and how cropping might be relevant to a commercial client..
Model with outfit.. crash in to shoes hand bag whatever to highlight that element to the potential buyer. This is the sort of work where misfocuss really shows and resolution is really required.
Here we see the '4k' of the FS7 is not really (even when shot 'upright to 'make it' 8k) capable of delivering even in the HD arena..
Im pretty sure that to deliver under such stringent conditions AF is well handy as are two alexa sensor lashed together and a serious fat codec
https://vimeo.com/215424992
Last edited:
I agree with you there - for stills but following focus in motion work is a completely different "skill" that snapping pictures. Snapping pictures is a reactionary action when you first frame , focus and shoot. Following motion is anticipatory where the object walks into the focus and stays there by the means of the puller following the subject. I just don't see AF ever doing that. Pre programmed focus tracking maybe but who on the set is going to program it and what talent will follow to the dot... I don't think we can compare still AF to motion focus and trying to make it work will bring poor results , at least for narrative...Im going to to tell you about stupidity - or at least tell you a little of my journey. I was really interested in pixel peeping in 2005 when my employer would not accept digital images only work shot on transparency (before I got into 'motion' I worked doing stills for glossy print magazines) - I had a big input in persuading them to 'go digital'.. with my 'new' 6k hasselblad camera and digital back.. so had to peep a lot of pixels.
Firstly.. Im very happy watching manually focussed 2/3k arriRaw at a movie theatre or at home - I dont personally feel the need for a lot more resolution than that. The lack of resolution of 2-3k does not take me outside the story in conventional movie making.
4k or 8k, are therefore to me somewhat pointless to me personally.. Until you enter the arena of the VFX/Crop to odd shapes/Deliver to multiple aspects where one may use only a small portion of the image to create ones final deliverable.
Now back to the reality of shooting 6k - well I spent a lot of time with that Hasselblad and I could not focus the damn thing - neither AF or manual - when I pixel peeped at 6k you would see I had hit the wrong eyelash.
Now you take that image focussed on the wrong eyelash and downscale it to the delivery 2k and.. well it looked sharp enough.. about as sharp as I was getting on film
So no one complained about my soft 'material'.. because it was as sharp as any scanned film I had ever delivered... but I knew 90% of it was soft because I peeped it on my Eizo.
Now still in the field - the (4k) nikon D3 came out and regularly outresolved my hasselblad.. because the AF worked better, then the (6k) 5d2 came out and the properly functioning AF and 6k started to create 'in the field' images that genuinely out resolved film scans.
Of course Im talking single frames - so people will not listen but there we go.
Anyway my basic conclusion was if you want to deliver high resolution images of moving subjects at wide Tstops the first challenge was focus.
My second conclusion was really that even the most skilled humans do not really have the ability to deliver this. Im not really saying Im personally skilled.. but not a total muppet.. having started out doing manual focus sports photography on film which is a good grounding in focus.
It would therefore seem to me 'stupid' to deliver a camera system with a large format sensor, high resolution capture and a set of T1.8 lenses without giving consideration to having that delivered hand in hand with an AF system that can at least 'tickle' the operator into the last few mm of focus, even if that human operator was doing 95% of the 'work'
--
I work today in some product situations, here I was testing my Fs7 under the conditions of cropping, and how cropping might be relevant to a commercial client..
Model with outfit.. crash in to shoes hand bag whatever to highlight that element to the potential buyer. This is the sort of work where misfocuss really shows and resolution is really required.
Here we see the '4k' of the FS7 is not really (even when shot 'upright to 'make it' 8k) capable of delivering even in the HD arena..
Im pretty sure that to deliver under such stringent conditions AF is well handy as are two alexa sensor lashed together and a serious fat codec
https://vimeo.com/215424992
Why would an experienced camera manufacturer expose themselves to ridicule from their clients like yourself that would use it, get poor results for one reason or another, even improper use, complain about it (the camera tech of course since nobody would blame themselves)on DVX user and damage the brand. That would actually be stupid...;-)
And maybe the most pedestrian reason is that the LF has an ALEV3 based sensor- the exact same sensor of the Alexa EV and Amira but just more of it. AF is a sensor feature so , obviously , this is not a feature available in the ALEV3 tech...
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
It a fair point that computers can't predict or do art.
An assistance system for critical is kind of different.
Certainly it needs acknowledging that without critical focus high resolution capture is somewhat pointless
An assistance system for critical is kind of different.
Certainly it needs acknowledging that without critical focus high resolution capture is somewhat pointless