alaskacameradude
Veteran
Now we can start telling all the 5D users that their '50mm is really a 85mm' because
of the 'crop factor' :happy:
of the 'crop factor' :happy:
ARRI Alexa 65
- Thread starter earshot
- Start date
indiawilds
Veteran
Arri just ensured that now we won't see shots of people taking their dogs for a walk. 
On a serious note, look forward to recreation of some old magic by the masters as some of the iconic films had been shot in that format.
On a serious note, look forward to recreation of some old magic by the masters as some of the iconic films had been shot in that format.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
The Phantom65 is available since 7 years or so, wasn't exactly a game changer for the industry since than - can't see why the Arri should.
Arri will probably hand build build a few, for exotic/specialty rental and that is that.
They already said, that they not gonna sell them, you can only rent (if Nolan or Bay don't need them in the moment)
Arri will probably hand build build a few, for exotic/specialty rental and that is that.
They already said, that they not gonna sell them, you can only rent (if Nolan or Bay don't need them in the moment)
AtticusLake
Well-known member
I think the big deal is that it's the same ARRI sensor technology that got Roger Deakins to go digital -- but with 6k resolution and the 65mm look.
Kolor-Pikker
Well-known member
That's kind of a shame, of all the medium format lenses available today, the Hasselblad/Fuji line are one of the weaker lineups; Schneider, Mamiya and Leica all have superior optics at slightly faster apertures. The only advantage of the H lenses is that they all come standard with leaf shutters - that aren't of any use for video.
The Phantom65 is old technology though, the sensor may be large, but it also has extremely limited DR and ISO capability, it's a specialty camera even amongst specialty gear. The Alexa 65 is quite literally just an Alexa with a larger lens mount and lenses, and can be used normally without making sure it doesn't explode from overheating or something.
In any case, ARRI is only renting these out because, quite paradoxically, no one actually wants to buy one. You'd think that the first "practical" 65mm camera would arrive with more fanfare, but all they heard was a "meh", so if someone's still crazy enough to buy one (or two for 3D), it's never too late to start a petition. Peter Jackson is sure to order a few of these for one of his big flicks, that's for sure.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Jon Fauer devoted an entire issue of Film & Digital Times to covering the ARRI 65. I'm hoping to dig thru it on a flight later today.
http://www.fdtimes.com/issues/cinec-munich-issue/
http://www.fdtimes.com/issues/cinec-munich-issue/
combatentropy
Veteran
What advantage does this camera bring?
It's 6K, but even 4K is overkill. I've been watching DVDs lately on my HD TV and quickly forget that they're just SD resolution.
It's a bigger frame, but what does that bring but shallower focus? f-2.8 or f-4 in Super 35 is about as shallow as you want to go for most things. Even I, a film buff, get sick of shallow focus. I imagine the average moviegoer subconciously feels about the same. For example, Inception on average was one or two stops shallower than typical Hollywood fare, and after a while it just made me squirm in my seat. It's nice for a few close-ups and stuff. Like a spice, in small amounts, it's nice. Dumped over the whole meal, it ruins it.
For all that you get something 10 pounds heavier and probably several times more expensive, especially after you include lenses.
It's 6K, but even 4K is overkill. I've been watching DVDs lately on my HD TV and quickly forget that they're just SD resolution.
It's a bigger frame, but what does that bring but shallower focus? f-2.8 or f-4 in Super 35 is about as shallow as you want to go for most things. Even I, a film buff, get sick of shallow focus. I imagine the average moviegoer subconciously feels about the same. For example, Inception on average was one or two stops shallower than typical Hollywood fare, and after a while it just made me squirm in my seat. It's nice for a few close-ups and stuff. Like a spice, in small amounts, it's nice. Dumped over the whole meal, it ruins it.
For all that you get something 10 pounds heavier and probably several times more expensive, especially after you include lenses.
Joshua Cadmium
Well-known member
I've never used the Phantom65, but the 11 stops of dynamic range on that camera was probably the limiting factor.
I'm quite certain that this will be huge and the demand will cause Arri to make a bunch of these and most likely make it available to anyone with the cash. You get the resolution of a Red with all the beautiful dynamic range and color of an Alexa. I really think this will be a huge milestone in digital imaging.
I'm most excited about the full frame 4K mode. You're getting over 40% more resolution than 4096x2160 in that mode. Zeiss Otus on that would have amazing clarity and depth.
I'll bet we'll see an Amira with full frame 4K only sometime down the line. It makes so much sense.
Purely for the bigger frame. They are likely going after the big studio productions that would have once been shot on 65mm cameras.
With the recent push by the studios to release every big movie in IMAX, it seems like there would be a market for this (if only on the high, high end).
It does also seem to fit in nicely with the studios plans to standardize 4K / UHD as a release format.
I see no reason to go with this camera. After all the iPhone 8 will likely have 8K, and everybody knows that 10K is around the corner...Then when we have had enough of the resolution wars, someone will pine away for a filter to bring back that classic 1080p look..Maybe it is the quality of the script, lighting, acting, and direction. Maybe...
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Two things...
-There's a different look to larger formats that just can't be replicated by wider apertures on smaller formats.
-And for FX the files will be effectively noise free.
-There's a different look to larger formats that just can't be replicated by wider apertures on smaller formats.
-And for FX the files will be effectively noise free.
niki
Active member
combatentropy
Veteran
The crop factor is 0.7, like putting a Speedbooster on a full-frame camera.
I can't think of why that would be the case, all else being equal.
I can't think of why that would be the case, all else being equal.
Yeah I can just see Fincher or Deakins shooting their next feature film on an iPHone...NOT!
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Ask most any medium, or large, format photographer.
roxics
Veteran
I disagree. The iPhone 8 "might" go 4K at that point if we're extremely lucky. That's the only downside to being an iPhone user this year, every other Android flagship has gone 4K.
combatentropy
Veteran
I would expect them to say that the larger format gives greater resolution. Or they might say less grain, which for film is another way of saying the same thing. They might also mention shallower focus. But if they say it just looks different, I would say they haven't looked closely enough.
There might be other differences related indirectly, like maybe the lenses are generally better or maybe the films have a slightly different recipe. But neither of those things really apply to the difference between a regular Alexa and an Alexa 65. The only difference I can think of between the two would be higher resolution and slightly shallower focus.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
I come from a professional stills background & have debated the look various formats yield with more photographers (some well known) than I can remember. None could explain exactly what it was but most firmly believed it was there.
Perhaps it has to do with capturing the same perspective on a longer lens, or maybe because there's less magnification in the final output, but no matter I've seen it with my own eyes & the phenomenon has nothing to do resolution, or the quality of the optics.
There's numerous reasons why some still drop large money on Leica medium format cameras & lenses when they could get nearly identical resolution with a D800, but the best is the look.
Best,
Bern
PS I don't believe Speed Boosters magnify the format rather they reduce the focal length. I know that's splitting hairs, but then again they are known as Focal Reducers.
Perhaps it has to do with capturing the same perspective on a longer lens, or maybe because there's less magnification in the final output, but no matter I've seen it with my own eyes & the phenomenon has nothing to do resolution, or the quality of the optics.
There's numerous reasons why some still drop large money on Leica medium format cameras & lenses when they could get nearly identical resolution with a D800, but the best is the look.
Best,
Bern
PS I don't believe Speed Boosters magnify the format rather they reduce the focal length. I know that's splitting hairs, but then again they are known as Focal Reducers.
Last edited:
bitcrusher
Well-known member
One big factor is the increased negative size. Medium format lenses don't have as much chromatic abrasion and diffraction because its easier to design lenses with a lager image circle.
MF photography will make your subject pop a little more.
But as combatentropy says " The crop factor is 0.7, like putting a Speedbooster on a full-frame camera. I can't think of why that would be the case, all else being equal."
If you could design a high resolution sensor and combine it with modern highly corrected lenses this is a good point. Which is why in the stills world a D800 with zeiss otus glass is eating into expansive digital backs.
DOF is about the same when you look at 135 vs 645 or 6x7 negative size as the fastest lens that you can get in MF is F1.9.
I am also not sure that this would necessarily replace IMAX as that is a 14 pref negative