Arri AMIRA

harddrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sound logic, but I just don't think it holds true for the reality of things at the moment. 'Major' motion pictures ($100+ million) that are intended primarily for big cinema screens, are being shot in 4K but having both their post-production and projection handled in 2K (generally 10-bit DPX from the sounds of things). And no-one spends the money to go back and re-master these things in in higher resolutions unless they're a Lawrence of Arabia/cinematic masterpiece kind of thing.

And if $100m motion pictures can't afford to do it, tv series certainly can't.

Things will move to 4K eventually, of that I have no doubt. But I highly doubt the transition will be any faster than glacial pace of the move from SD to HD. Especially since most people struggle to see the difference between 4K and 2K in real world viewing conditions.
 
4k "maybe" has a place in acquisition, and maybe eventually large screen digital projection. But for TV / Broadcast its going to take much longer than it did to transition from SD to HD - I humbly concur.
 
harddrive said:
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.
Click to expand...

For owner/operators the F5/F55 is a great choice, especially if you compare it to the Alexa on purchase price. The 4k option doesn't hurt, but if you could buy that same camera for half price with no 4k option, would you? It gets a little tempting doesn't it? If the Alexa was the same price as the F5, I think we'd be seeing a lot of those guys picking up Alexas.
The Alexa is much loved for its image and the simplified workflow. Both things that saved post production money and justified it's high purchase price. With the f5 coming in substantially cheaper and making a nice image, of course it's going to get some love. If I were buying a camera in that range, I'd be looking at the F5. If I'm renting, well then we'll see...

harddrive said:
And I don't know of any high budget drama etc that is currently using cameras in the range of the C100/AF100/FS100.
Click to expand...
Sorry if I wasn't clear...I didn't really mean to imply that they were. The next round of cameras that are prosumer, decent for the budget, and shoot 4k will push for more adoption of the format. Then there will be more pressure on the higher end to deliver cheaper, just like the 5DII pushing the large sensor movement, and voila! 4k will be standard and cheap for cameras and by then there might be a real call for 4k production and distribution. Sure it's nice to be able to shoot 4k between now and then, but it just might not make as much sense financially.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't know how you got from A to B in this post but you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am not going to name names, but there are cameras with specs that look great on paper but I do not like the look they create, or they have operational issues, or (if it is even possible) I do not like the amount of time it takes to make them look they way I want. I do not use those cameras, period, end of story.

I have a real problem with people on Internet forums who thump their chest and proclaim other people's opinions invalid while not even understanding the point that is being made. It's toxic, completely unnecessary, and adds nothing of value to the discussion.
 
I imagine the set, makeup and costume design budget would sky rocket for a show like Downton Abbey, if shot in 4K.
 
Let's not forget shooting 4k for film, corporate, and other commercial projects has been happening with 10's of thousands of people worldwide on RED cameras since around 2007. Shooting in 4k and delivering in 1080p is not a novel idea, and computers and video card processing have come a long way.

There are people out there quite adamant that they only ever need 1080p and nothing else. There are others who appreciate the added flexibility and value of having the ability to shoot in 4k even though delivery might be in something less.

The cinema guys like myself want to shoot in 4k. I bought the F55 and if the F5 was half the price, no I wouldn't have bought the F5. As for any future proofing arguments as with any sound business decision one should always invest in what they need TODAY not what they might need tomorrow.

Now Alexa has been defying 4k for a long time arguing that in the end compared to their cameras and technology there is very little final difference seen between an Alexa and 4k camera. In fact they wrote and published a massive document on the subject and given they have been an authority on film cameras for decades people in film listened to them of course.

So now you have ARRI 2k cameras perfect for film and TV, RED 4k cameras with post workflow burdens to deliver 1080p, and the new Sony's kind of stretching across both landscapes. Sony doesn't give a sh!t what you believe is the better resolution to shoot in because they have two very flexible cameras capable of offering BOTH.

ARRI will never deliver a 4k camera until they make it a 8k camera that delivers a true 4000 lines of resolution, not 4000 pixels of resolution. But their belief right now is there is no way to actually display a true 4k. (from what I read in their publication and several other articles)
 
Last edited:
Andrius Simutis said:
For owner/operators the F5/F55 is a great choice, especially if you compare it to the Alexa on purchase price. The 4k option doesn't hurt, but if you could buy that same camera for half price with no 4k option, would you? It gets a little tempting doesn't it?
Click to expand...
I suspect if I put that option (F5/55 for half the price with no 4K option) to the people I know who have gone the F5/55 route then yes, I'm sure they'd probably go for it. I'd say it was more than tempting! :)

But is it a realistic scenario? I'd say not, and maybe at core is the fact that a 4K chip produces a very good 1080 image indeed, and does it simply and with low power consumption - by using the 2x2 block method, as first described by Canon for the C300. So to use the F5 as example, it's fundamentally a 1080 camera which uses the 4K chip to simplify processing (compared to such as the F3) - the ability to add 4K RAW capture via an additional recorder is a bit of a bonus, if you like. And that's how one of my friends sees it - he think's he's bought a very good, large format 1080 camera, and if and when he needs 4K and/or RAW, intends to rent the additional hardware as needed. Not building in the 4K ability is very unlikely to reduce the cost much if at all - certainly not by 50%.
 
harddrive said:
I suspect if I put that option (F5/55 for half the price with no 4K option) to the people I know who have gone the F5/55 route then yes, I'm sure they'd probably go for it. I'd say it was more than tempting! :)

But is it a realistic scenario?
Click to expand...

Of course it's not realistic, but it does illustrate the point that as nice as 4k acquisition is, it's not the end all feature that people need right now.
4k is useful, it's nice, I wouldn't mind having it as an option, but in reality I don't really need it for 99% of what I do. Of course, I can't speak for everyone but I see the logic in Arri's decision to release 2k cameras that kick ass instead of 4k cameras that might not, or might cost a lot more.
 
Yesterday, at IBTS, in Italy, i try for a few moments the Amira on my shoulder:
it's built like a tank, but weight like a tank, with the 19-90 cabrio and a anton bauer battery it's like
12-13 kilos; i have a f5 and with similar lens i think it's almost like 5 kilos less.
Price tba but around 26k->30k euros.
 
I don't think the prototype mockups of the Amira are representative of what its final weight will be. They've made a point of saying it'l be lighter than Alexa, but currently the prototypes seem to weigh the same as standard Alexas.
 
Cristian Doti said:
Yesterday, at IBTS, in Italy, i try for a few moments the Amira on my shoulder:
it's built like a tank, but weight like a tank, with the 19-90 cabrio and a anton bauer battery it's like
12-13 kilos; i have a f5 and with similar lens i think it's almost like 5 kilos less.
Price tba but around 26k->30k euros.
Click to expand...


That's like 26 pounds. That doesn't sound so lightweight to me.
 
Also: is that price in line with the expectations that got people excited about this one? I guess I always knew it wouldn't be a lot cheaper than that, but I hoped it would.
 
Samuel H said:
Also: is that price in line with the expectations that got people excited about this one? I guess I always knew it wouldn't be a lot cheaper than that, but I hoped it would.
Click to expand...

Depends if the VF is (or isn't) included. That will make a big difference to the end-price. Sounds too exxie for me. For US$26K I got an F5/OLED loaded with cards, raw recorder, charger and batteries. The Arri look looks great but too much for what it is (if those Euro$ guestimates are correct).
 
powervideo said:
Depends if the VF is (or isn't) included. That will make a big difference to the end-price. Sounds too exxie for me. For US$26K I got an F5/OLED loaded with cards, raw recorder, charger and batteries. The Arri look looks great but too much for what it is (if those Euro$ guestimates are correct).
Click to expand...

ARRI are touting this as a complete kit; Pick Up > Shoot. So, I think we can assume it comes with the VF/LCD.
 
if you don't use the cabrio zoom, the amira is like an pmw f5 with a baseplate can record only prores 1080p.
Only much more heavy e sturdier.
 
I have no desire to own an F5. And before you think I'm a Sony hater, my last cam was an F35, and the only reason I replaced it with an Epic was because it was stolen.
 
Cristian Doti said:
if you don't use the cabrio zoom, the amira is like an pmw f5 with a baseplate can record only prores 1080p.
Only much more heavy e sturdier.
Click to expand...

You mean, it's like an F5 with Alexa color and skin tone that can give you up to 8 stops of overexposure latitude ;) pretty big difference if you ask me.
 
The fact that Arri included the EF mount is a recognition of how popular the EF mount has become and also due to the availability of quality cine lenses (primes) in EF mount by various manufacturers. One can have good cine primes in Zeiss, Canon as well as Schneider Xenon lenses... rehoused still lenses etc.

I can see that a few guys with Sony cameras getting tensed. Buying a camera is like stepping down from a treadmill. Some other company will come and launch a "new and better" product. No point in becoming insecure as your camera will still be able to paint your vision. It won't stop working. The 200 fps will be awesome. I see many features will be produced in this camera, if the pricing is right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top