Arri goes 4k

G

Gillvane

Veteran
No release date or price yet, but some details and thoughts behind Arri's 4k design are released.This is going to be in the pro arena when it comes to price, probably a good deal more than a Red Epic, but who knows for sure?

The Alexa has already made some great movies so I'm betting this will be a popular go to cam when it's released.

What do they mean by "temporal resolution"? Are they talking about frames per second?


http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=20081
 
Last edited:
Pretty funny coming from a company who on their own website has said in the past that 2k is "good enough" and there is no reason to change it or shoot beyond it.

"ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that Avatar was technically shot in 1080p...." (from http://gizmodo.com/5511054/arri-alexa-camera-digital-cinematic-bliss)
lol

Truth is they are probably right, but when sales start slacking because everyone else is jumping on the 4k band-wagon then I guess its time to also do it yourself.
 
Arri always intended on making a 4k camera. This is not a new decision based on competition.

“The Alexa camera family concept had initially included a 4K-plus sensor version to be launched approximately one year after the introduction of the first Alexa. But the outcome of an intensive feasibility study more than two years ago showed that we would sacrifice dynamic range for resolution, so we decided not to proceed,” he explained.

They basically said image quality is many things, one of them being resolution but DR is more important, and it turns out they were pretty spot on.

Sounds like they wanted to make a 4k camera all along but just didn't think it would produce a significantly better image than HD until they could do better DR. Maybe now they can, so you'll get both more resolution and DR with a solid Arri build.
 
This all stems from one interview with a couple of quotes in the Hollywood Reporter. Lots of forum and blogger speculation followed, substantiated with little to no fact.

Of COURSE Arri has 4K in development. Every company has R&D departments and they are working away at whatever should come next. It could be years away. These things can take forever to bring to market, and sometimes, as noted in the original article, a design doesn't pan out and the need to go back to the drawing board.

All the article really said is that the next camera is in development, and that it will have high frame rates, high dynamic range, low noise, great color and yes, at higher resolution. The current Alexa sensor is 2.9K and the next camera will be "at least 4K." Whenever that happens.

Arri has always been consistent in their design beliefs. Dynamic range and color reproduction are first. An earlier sensor design idea was going to raise resolution at the cost of these other factors so Arri decided to scrap it and start down another path. Their goal -- and remember it is a goal, not necessarily something they have achieved and have sitting on a test bench -- is to raise resolution while not lowering performance in their other critical benchmarks.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Arri has always been consistent in their design beliefs. Dynamic range and color reproduction are first. An earlier sensor design idea was going to raise resolution at the cost of these other factors so Arri decided to scrap it and start down another path. Their goal -- and remember it is a goal, not necessarily something they have achieved and have sitting on a test bench -- is to raise resolution while not lowering performance in their other critical benchmarks.
Click to expand...

This is where the meat and potatoes are in professional cameras. DR and color are what truly stand up to the test of time. Resolution is eyecatching at first but you adjust after a while only to forget about it.
 
Bassman2003 said:
This is where the meat and potatoes are in professional cameras. DR and color are what truly stand up to the test of time. Resolution is eyecatching at first but you adjust after a while only to forget about it.
Click to expand...

I think it's great to push technology and 4k makes a pretty image, but I honestly think we're fast approaching the area of diminishing returns when it comes to resolution.

I know Red fans will gush about how awesome 4k is and you haven't even seen a movie till you've seen it in 4k projection and so on, but for the average movie goer, the butts in seats that buy tickets and pay the bills, The Avengers obviously looks just fine. What was used for The Avengers, the biggest grossing picture of 2012 with mondo mega huge FX?

Arri Alexa, Panavision Primo, PCZ and Frazier Lenses
Arriflex 435, Panavision Primo Lenses
Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon Lenses
Canon EOS 7D, Canon Lenses

Is anyone going gee The Avengers looked good and all, but if only it was in 4k! Yea, some pixel peepers. Is the general audience going to pay more or respond better to The Avengers in 4k? I"m thinking not really. I mean yes we're going there and we should, but it's just not like going from SD to HD. It's a slight improvement and over time the improvements get harder and harder for the average person to see.
 
With the kind of sharpness and detail that the 5D3+RAW gives you, I don't think I'd ever need higher res. If it's there, well, great. But I probably wouldn't pay extra for that. What I would pay for (to a certain extent) is DR, and codec, and sensor size, and colors.

Of course, different people have different needs, and I'm not a big production with millions to burn.
 
4K is better than 2K, don't get me wrong. But 2K is good enough for me, especially considering the upper limit of human vision at average viewing distances makes 4K absolutely indistinguishable from 2K. Would I take 4K if it were free? Sure, why not? It would at least give me options in reframing, as others have said.

But 4K is not free. Even if the camera were free, 4K has two stops less light sensitivity, two stops less dynamic range, four times as much storage requirements, four times as long rendering times as a 2K sensor based on identical technology. So, when a 4K sensor has global shutter, 16 stops of dynamic range, is ISO 1600, when flash cards are pennies per gigabyte and rendering times are instantaneous even for 4K, then sure, I'll take 4K. But until then, I will gladly trade resolution for global shutter, latitude, the ability to use commodity media cards, and easy post.
 
Last edited:
starcentral said:
Truth is they are probably right, but when sales start slacking because everyone else is jumping on the 4k band-wagon then I guess its time to also do it yourself.
Click to expand...

I think he is very right. Resolution is less important than color, contrast, etc. If resolution was everything, the JVC HD1 & HD10 cameras would've been extremely popular. But while it was the first "affordable" "HD" camera to the market, every other aspect of the picture quality sucked & thus the camera was never praised as a game changer.

It amazes me that a 1080p movie looks good on the large screen. Just amazes me. But then think about film... A 35mm still negative wasn't considered high enough quality for the cover of a magazine. Yet the negative of a 35mm motion picture is smaller & the canvas is much larger than a news stand magazine. And the average viewer didn't complain about how much they could see the grain when they sat in theaters looking at the big screen. Our eyes & brains work in funny ways sometimes that they way we see resolution, color, contrast, motion is a dynamic dance of what looks good & what doesn't.

When I read that he said they ditched 4k upgrade path to make a better overall camera, I think that is a very wise choice. And for how popular the Alexa is, I think it shows they made the right choice. Resolution isn't everything.
 
Gillvane said:
I think it's great to push technology and 4k makes a pretty image, but I honestly think we're fast approaching the area of diminishing returns when it comes to resolution.

I know Red fans will gush about how awesome 4k is and you haven't even seen a movie till you've seen it in 4k projection and so on, but for the average movie goer, the butts in seats that buy tickets and pay the bills, The Avengers obviously looks just fine. What was used for The Avengers, the biggest grossing picture of 2012 with mondo mega huge FX?

Arri Alexa, Panavision Primo, PCZ and Frazier Lenses
Arriflex 435, Panavision Primo Lenses
Canon EOS 5D Mark II, Canon Lenses
Canon EOS 7D, Canon Lenses

Is anyone going gee The Avengers looked good and all, but if only it was in 4k! Yea, some pixel peepers. Is the general audience going to pay more or respond better to The Avengers in 4k? I"m thinking not really. I mean yes we're going there and we should, but it's just not like going from SD to HD. It's a slight improvement and over time the improvements get harder and harder for the average person to see.
Click to expand...
There might be a very short scene done with the 7D but I am sure 99% of it was done with the Arri or Arriflex. Avatar grossed a record $2,782,275,172 and was shot with eight Sony HDC-F950 cameras for primary acquisition and Sony HDC-1500 cameras captured speed shots during live action, with the then recently available F23 camera also used for specific shots.
 
Pointless "debate" about what Arri supposedly wants/doesn't want. Dynamic Range IS more important than resolution. Seems Red agrees. They have gone mad over this Dragon improved sensor technology.

Best Cinematography, 2013: Skyfall / Alexa.

Gimme a break.
 
Oh boy I can't wait for all those now obsolete and worthless 2K Alexas to start showing up on eBay real cheap!!



Shaaaaaa!
 
mail4joeg said:
Pointless "debate" about what Arri supposedly wants/doesn't want. Dynamic Range IS more important than resolution. Seems Red agrees. They have gone mad over this Dragon improved sensor technology.

Best Cinematography, 2013: Skyfall / Alexa.

Gimme a break.
Click to expand...
i look forward to seeing some footage. I really like the look of a lot of films shot on the epic.
 
starcentral said:
"ARRI is also less concerned about the resolution race, citing the fact that Avatar was technically shot in 1080p...."
Click to expand...

That is the biggest drawback 3D Avatar only in 1080p, I really missed more details and more resolution. What a waste.
 
mail4joeg said:
Pointless "debate" about what Arri supposedly wants/doesn't want. Dynamic Range IS more important than resolution.
Click to expand...
Why does it have to be one or the other? What's wrong with great dynamic range AND at 4K? Best of both worlds?

Is anybody really saying the F55 is a slouch as regards dynamic range?

Strikes me that Arri have just realised they've been wrong footed marketing wise big time, should have had their 4K plans far more advanced, and are looking for excuses.......
 
ARRI honestly does not care about 4k, the original thread title tricked me for a mere second but looks like ARRI is sticking to its guns about not believing in the 4k hype. Afterall didn't they just announce the XT camera lineup which are four new ARRI cameras each with improvements over the Alexa?

Behind the scenes somewhere on a bench ARRI may very well be dabbling with 6k sensors to yield 4k resolution and all the dynamic range and color science to go with it, but I just don't get the impression they really are going to jump on the bandwagon. Anyone agree / disagree?

As for dynamic range, resolution.. or even bit depth I've always believed that the Alexa uses some very special highlight handling processing in-camera before the signal is even encoded and recorded. It's what gives you those gentle highlight roll-off characteristics you'd get with film - but instead on digital in Rec709 or log-c and without having to shoot linear RAW where highlight information is practically infinite.

I would take this highlight handling quality over dynamic range, resolution or color reproduction.
 
I think that is the thing. Arri is most assuredly heavy into R&D and have no plans to take a back seat to anyone in the high end cinema camera world. It would seem that the Alexa is a huge hit and with it they, IMHO, seem to have set the cinema digital capture bar pretty high. They are very much hooked at the hip with some of the world greatest cinematographers and I think they know what they are doing. When they come out with a 4K camera they are going to have to put an ARRI placard on the side. I think that is something that they take very seriously and they are not going to be playing the resolution for resolution sake game.

Here is the article from THR linked to in the OP link. Arri's managing director Franz Kraus is saying that much of the push for 4K is being lead by the TV/Monitor makers with less than honest trade show antics. Interesting.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/arris-managing-director-hd-is-578724
 
Out of interest..... Which is more profitable for these camera companies? The TV industry or the film industry?

It seems everyone talks about the Hollywood films as the yardstick of success for RED, ARRI etc..... and, of course, there is alot of money and prestige in the industry.... But Alexa seems to have the TV side of things sewn up and might just see their success in Hollywood as an offshoot to their TV dominance, not something that dictates their every move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top