Arri AMIRA

I'm really hoping Amira offers four key things:

- Boot up considerably quicker than Alexa
- Feature a more usable 12-step false colour meter (the current Alexa setup can't show you your contrast ratios across the frame)
- Chew its batteries before swallowing them (something Alexa never learnt to do!)
- Be at least 2kg lighter than Alexa
 
Grug said:
I'm really hoping Amira offers four key things:

- Boot up considerably quicker than Alexa
Click to expand...

Mmm, depending on the installed licenses it takes between 15 to 22 seconds to boot our rental Alexa. While a quicker boot time would be nice, I have never had an issue shooting commercials with the Alexa.
 
Interesting, the Alexa I used on my shoot last week (my first and only direct experience with the camera to date) was taking roughly 45 seconds to boot up each time. Which becomes really frustrating when the camera is eating through batteries as quickly as it does.

15-20 seconds would be a lot more bearable.
 
Amira looks awesome, but sony f55 is really an unreal camera and hard to beat from specs- i'd be more than happy shooting on either.
 
hunter richards said:
Amira looks awesome, but sony f55 is really an unreal camera and hard to beat from specs- i'd be more than happy shooting on either.
Click to expand...

I still feel digital cameras have a ways to go, but these are exciting cameras, as they are showing the beginnings of digital as a viable natural looking 2D medium.
 
Well the last 35mm film camera I shot with was the Arri 535, which can now be purchased for under $5K

Digital cameras are only going to keep getting better and cheaper.
 
atarijedi said:
Also, they are a Sony rental company.

It is an advertisement, plain and simple. Nothing more.
Click to expand...
AFAIK they don't do rental, just sales, and far more than just Sony - they're also a big Panasonic camera dealer, and also sell camera accessories (lights, tripods etc) from many other companies.

Be that as it may, then .....well, at least they declare their vested interest, and taken argument by argument I do find it hard to fault any of their logic........... It does read as coming from the heart.

My feelings about the Amira are that it's positioned as an interim product pending the release of the "4K Alexa", which I expect to see early next year. When that happens, expect it to directly take over from the current Alexa, and the Amira to be the lower cost sibling. Launching the Amira now is preparing the ground for that.
 
hunter richards said:
Amira looks awesome, but sony f55 is really an unreal camera and hard to beat from specs- i'd be more than happy shooting on either.
Click to expand...

It's really hard to beat the F55 on specs, which is a pain, because I do still prefer the Alexa/Amira's image (and the ProRes workflow). I think a lot of it comes down to the distribution of latitude across the respective sensors - the F55 has 5.5 stops of overexposure headroom, and the rest down below, and the Arri's have 7 stops of overexposure headroom (with less in the shadows) which just seems to make life easier - especially when it comes to dealing with highlights on caucasian skin or bright shiny backlights.

So how do you make decisions between an image that you prefer (albeit not by a big margin), and specs that allow you to do 'more'?

Buggered if I know!

harddrive said:
My feelings about the Amira are that it's positioned as an interim product pending the release of the "4K Alexa", which I expect to see early next year. When that happens, expect it to directly take over from the current Alexa, and the Amira to be the lower cost sibling. Launching the Amira now is preparing the ground for that.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure, I really don't see the majority of broadcasting networks moving up and on from 1080p capture and distribution any time soon. It's too much cost for something they can't even properly deliver at this stage.
 
Grug said:
So how do you make decisions between an image that you prefer (albeit not by a big margin), and specs that allow you to do 'more'?

Buggered if I know!
Click to expand...

You go with what looks better to you and what is easier to work with. To hell with specs. Specs mean nothing when your ass is on the line and you need to get quality work done properly.
 
harddrive said:
My feelings about the Amira are that it's positioned as an interim product pending the release of the "4K Alexa", which I expect to see early next year. When that happens, expect it to directly take over from the current Alexa, and the Amira to be the lower cost sibling. Launching the Amira now is preparing the ground for that.
Click to expand...

I think the current Alexa (along with 1080p acquisition) will be around for a while, but I agree that the whole Arri lineup will make more sense with a 4K Alexa at the top. Amira for docs/corporate/B-cam, Alexa HD for commercials/TV, Alexa 4K / 4K Studio for features.

The message is, regardless of which camera you choose, you get standardized Arri image quality. Almost like going back to film cameras– the bodies have workflow and mechanical differences, but the image quality comes from the film stock. Now you can shoot Arri digital "stock" and choose the body with the workflow you need.
 
Grug said:
I'm not so sure, I really don't see the majority of broadcasting networks moving up and on from 1080p capture and distribution any time soon. It's too much cost for something they can't even properly deliver at this stage.
Click to expand...
From a manufacturers point of view, equipment sold and in use is water under the bridge. It's money that's already gone through the books.

What their sales people are interested in are sales that will happen soon and over the next few years. That's what will keep them in a job and get (or not :) ) their bonuses. And at the moment, if you're selling equipment destined for high end usage, 4K ability is likely to be looked on very favourably by purchasers - even if they currently plan to use it in 1080 mode. It's true enough to say a 4K camera will likely make a good 1080 camera - you can't say the opposite.

And for the sort of programming recently done on the Alexa, it's likely the bulk of the budget will be for actors, transport, location, costumes, crew wages, accommodation etc etc - the difference nowadays between 4K and 1080 production costs is likely to only account for a small percentage of the overall budget. No, I don't see any 4K Alexa being used for run of the mill broadcast work, but I do see it being used for TV production of the likes of "Downton Abbey". Even though at the moment there is no 4K broadcast route in the UK, I'd think it well worth any extra cost from a future proofing point of view.
 
harddrive said:
No, I don't see any 4K Alexa being used for run of the mill broadcast work, but I do see it being used for TV production of the likes of "Downton Abbey". Even though at the moment there is no 4K broadcast route in the UK, I'd think it well worth any extra cost from a future proofing point of view.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. Would the increased costs in 4k acquisition, data storage and post production now justify some possible 4k use in the future? Upscaling of SD content to HD is fairly good for most consumers who still watch DVDs on their HD TV sets. The revenue generated by a TV show drops off fairly quickly these days. There is the immediate ad revenue when it airs, some revenue from streaming/VOD, and a (now shrinking) market for the DVD set. For most shows all of this happens in a short window of about a year. After that it's relegated to the bargain bin. Even the binge watching on Netflix only happens for shows that are still airing and considered hot. A big part of the push there is to increase the current audience.
If a major shift over to 4k happens within a few years even the shows that are hot right now won't benefit from being "future proofed" as they won't be in very high demand.
 
Andrius Simutis said:
Would the increased costs in 4k acquisition, data storage and post production now justify some possible 4k use in the future?
Click to expand...
Would depend on the production. I'm not sure the increased costs are really that much - certainly not compared to the overall budget of an entire production at the high end. Either way, if I was buying a top end camera now, and hoping for a lifespan of up to 5 years I'd want it to be at least 4K CAPABLE, and that would be especially true for rental houses.

What I'm expecting is a 4K Alexa for about the same as an Alexa has cost up to now, and obviously capable of being used in 1080 mode. In that case, it becomes less a case of why buy 4K, more why on earth buy anything else.
 
harddrive said:
Would depend on the production. I'm not sure the increased costs are really that much - certainly not compared to the overall budget of an entire production at the high end. Either way, if I was buying a top end camera now, and hoping for a lifespan of up to 5 years I'd want it to be at least 4K CAPABLE, and that would be especially true for rental houses.

What I'm expecting is a 4K Alexa for about the same as an Alexa has cost up to now, and obviously capable of being used in 1080 mode. In that case, it becomes less a case of why buy 4K, more why on earth buy anything else.
Click to expand...

These days the budgets are pretty tight. Any expense has to be justified. If the only justification is native resolution for a future broadcast format that won't see widespread adoption for a few years...well I'd see that as a hard sale to make to the producer and network that is looking at 80-99% of their income being made inside of one year. Few shows have the legs to earn anything at all after just a few years. Do you think that they'd be able to earn more money with a 4k rebroadcast? Seinfeld, Friends, and all those other sitcoms are still airing in syndication with shows that were made in SD 4:3. Taking HD shows and airing them when (and if) we go 4k will be even less noticeable. Beyond the quality, they're not going to earn more in syndication for being available in 4k vs HD.
That's not to say that 4k acquisition isn't a good thing, it's just that it's not a slam dunk economically right now.

As far as buying a 4k camera today, well that's again a question that depends on what kind of work you're doing. If you're not doing any work on 4k productions, the argument can be made that you're better off buying the HD cam that gets the job today, rather than spend the money it costs to be an early adopter. My guess is that we'll see the next round of cameras in the C100/AF100/FS100 range all be 4k which means that they'll be a fraction of the cost of today's 4k cams. Maybe by then we'll see some more demand for 4k content too. I still don't know anyone who owns a 4k TV and I know a lot of early adopters. ...which reminds me...what ever happened to everything going 3D? Wasn't that the next big thing? We'd all run out and buy 3D TVs and all the broadcasters were going to go 3D?
 
Andrius Simutis said:
As far as buying a 4k camera today, well that's again a question that depends on what kind of work you're doing. If you're not doing any work on 4k productions, the argument can be made that you're better off buying the HD cam that gets the job today,........
Click to expand...
The people I know who have recently bought/intend to buy a higher end camera have all bought a F5/55. Yes, I believe that most of them will mostly use them in 1080 mode at the moment - and they've been primarily bought for their large sensor features, and ergonomics that are far more professional than most of the other large sensor cameras. But - the word I get is that 4K flexibility certainly makes them feel far happier about the life span of their new purchases.

In other words, they are the camera that gets the HD job today - but keeps open the door to tomorrow. From what I hear, the Alexa was fast becoming camera of choice for serious TV drama, at least in the UK, but has recently been losing out to the F55. I suspect a 4K Alexa may be what Arri think they need to re-establish their supremacy.
My guess is that we'll see the next round of cameras in the C100/AF100/FS100 range all be 4k which means that they'll be a fraction of the cost of today's 4k cams.
Click to expand...
All I'll say is that all 4K is not equal. Both the PXW-Z100 and the F55 are 4K - does anybody then think they'll produce equivalent images?

And I don't know of any high budget drama etc that is currently using cameras in the range of the C100/AF100/FS100. I've heard in the UK the BBC is certainly using some C300s for some broadcast work - but not the top end stuff, AFAIK. Compared to all the other fixed costs, the savings over using something like an Alexa are a small percentage of total budget. The same situation is likely to be the case if/when there is more general 4K acceptance.
 
Celluloid Dream said:
You go with what looks better to you and what is easier to work with. To hell with specs. Specs mean nothing when your ass is on the line and you need to get quality work done properly.
Click to expand...

Actually, when your ass is on the line, using specs to help you calculate latitude and the number of lights needed and so on is very smart, if those specs can be trusted. "What looks better" means nothing if all you do is look at demo films, as the specs tell you when that same camera will let you down and why, situations which are not presented in demo films, or even you might not have encountered yet in using a camera yourself, until that one fateful day where the images look bad or don;t hold up well in post, or you haven't ordered enough lights to fix the problem and you wish you spent more time reading specs an understanding them.

I have a real problem with this kind of "ignorance is bliss" attitude - it goes right against the values of educated people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top