ARRI SXT, new Alexa XT at 4K

It's the same sensor and, in all likelihood, a lot of processing power and a new top notch algorithm, far beyond to what one might get in a current 4K TV set, that help ARRI make this assertion. Hypothetically speaking, one can get above the native resolution of a sensor with pixel shifting as Olympus is doing with its EM5 MK II - although, this is not what ARRI is claiming with this camera - and, at some point, one should see this in video products. From the current releases, EM5 MK II can deliver a 40 MPX image out of a 16 MPX sensor. The only catch is that you can't shoot moving images due to the time it takes to process the pixel shifting itself. If your object is not stationary, then it comes out blurred. The Olympus managers stated that they should be able to do it with the next generation of that model.

But - EM5 MK II is a $1,100 camera retail. SXT is ... well, far, far, far higher priced and so I wouldn't be surprised, if in lieu of increasing the pixel count of this very sensor, ARRI simply decided to pixel-shift its way to 4K and then beyond it.
 
DLD said:
It's the same sensor and, in all likelihood, a lot of processing power and a new top notch algorithm, far beyond to what one might get in a current 4K TV set, that help ARRI make this assertion. Hypothetically speaking, one can get above the native resolution of a sensor with pixel shifting as Olympus is doing with its EM5 MK II - although, this is not what ARRI is claiming with this camera - and, at some point, one should see this in video products. From the current releases, EM5 MK II can deliver a 40 MPX image out of a 16 MPX sensor. The only catch is that you can't shoot moving images due to the time it takes to process the pixel shifting itself. If your object is not stationary, then it comes out blurred. The Olympus managers stated that they should be able to do it with the next generation of that model.

But - EM5 MK II is a $1,100 camera retail. SXT is ... well, far, far, far higher priced and so I wouldn't be surprised, if in lieu of increasing the pixel count of this very sensor, ARRI simply decided to pixel-shift its way to 4K and then beyond it.
Click to expand...

Arri actually just uprezzes the footage, but because they have such a well designed OLPF it blurs the image just enough that it's pleasing to look at and you rarely notice the lack of resolution in a theatre/during closeups. With their current sensor tech Arri solved the 4k problem with the Arri 65, but I doubt the current generation of Alexas will ever have a true 4k 16X9 sensor.
 
ReelWorksMedia said:
This is a ridiculous comment. The RED furum, like this forum, is full of very talented and insightful people...many of which are absolutely professionals who are open to all great forms of imaging tech.
Click to expand...
To read this kind of posts against RU where the forums were born by the same founder and President of associated cinema camera project is beyond any good sense of accurate perspective on balanced facts as much as same family members or close relatives (or not so close) hating each other... for no sense or pure trivia with no exact clue why :-)
 
IanTheM said:
Arri actually just uprezzes the footage ...
Click to expand...
Right but, hypothetically, it can be uprezzed to an imperceptible level (and beyond 4K). An off-the-shelf 4K TV will upres a 1080P image to 4K to only a subtly inferior quality compared to a native 4K footage using a processor in a (educated guess) $30-$50 range. Alexa SXT, given its price tag, can afford to increase an in-body processing power far beyond that. At that point, the question becomes not what ARRI has managed to create rather than recreate. In other words, it will look like a 4K image but the question is whether it will look the same as a 4K image taken by a true 4K sensor. The analogy will be closer to a digitally remastered audio from the olden eras. It's impossible to create a modern quality recording from the 1930's original (presuming a vinyl record and not film/optical) but, the closer you get to the dawn of digital of the late-1970's-early-1980's, the finer the remastering can be. SXT is basically doubling its pixel count and I assume the end result won't be worse off than an authentic 4K product.

PS. Back in late 1980's, Sony introduced a ~ $5,000 27" Improved Definition TV. It was not a success because the processing power of the upscaling chip was insufficient for the moving images. I recall watching a Monday Night Football broadcast once on it (then on ABC) and, as long as Al Michaels was shown, the picture was far beyond anything I had seen before that. But, as soon as the game kicked off, the ghosting became evident. Those in the market for a high end TV without budgetary restraints went with a projection set that had a Farouja Labs chip that both deinterlaced and doubled the line count (from 480i to 480p). The improvement in picture quality was immense off cable, OTA, VHS and the laser discs (12", which was usually the preferred choice). And, to bring this back to Alexa SXT, if it has a state of the art chip and algorithm, then the image will be as pristine as from the original but will appear to have more detail.
 
Holy crap who cares what red or their fans say? All the top films and DP's use Arri's and could care less about red or your BS DSLR or Cion or whatever. Do any of you bother to pay attention to what movies in theaters are shot on? Read industry articles much? Real DP interviews? Alexa's won years ago and film still rules. Arri's 4K is better than anyone here needs. Get over yourselves and your opinions. I know everyone on the internet loves to hear themselves talk but, wow, no one else does. Case closed.
 
Resolution is not everything. While it helps to have enough so the image doesn't fall apart we should keep in mind that 2k or 1080p is still pretty darn high. Anything above that is really gravy and helps the image from falling apart during processing. Considering most FX movies Handle their VFX, CC and mastering at 2k I really don't see this as a big deal. To complain about Arri and resolution is just plain silly. I would take an Arri over a GH4 any day if I had the choice.
 
Yeah, resolution is kinda like 3D, it was hype and sold tickets 3-4 years ago, nowdays, not so much.

Out of all the movies nominated for Oscars this year in best picture, cinematography and visual effects, only 1 was "mastered" in 4K, and it was Unbroken shot on Alexa (Hobbit wasn't nominated in visual effects).

I'm not saying 2K is enough and we should all stop progressing, just that there "seems" to be other factors more important than racing the pixelrace.
 
High1ander said:
... I'm not saying 2K is enough and we should all stop progressing, just that there "seems" to be other factors more important than racing the pixelrace.
Click to expand...
The current and continuous pixel race is toward 8K. 4K is merely a pit stop.
 
Gillvane said:
For a small movie theater screen, you'd have to sit at least 12 feet from the screen to see the difference between 4k and 8k. We're talking like only the front row. So what would be the point of 8k? I don't even like sitting in the front row because you can't see the whole screen.

http://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/
Click to expand...
It won't matter for small theaters but the marquee screens will be upgraded.

On the consumer level, you'll probably see an internal up-res of a 4K native material to match the individual TV/projection screen density. 4K is 100 PPI on a 39" screen. Meanwhile, smaller hand-held devices can have as many as 500 PPI, with Samsung Galaxy Note 4 hitting a 515 mark already. And, to get from 80-100 native PPI to 500+, you'll need up-rezzing.

Or 8K.
 
DLD said:
The current and continuous pixel race is toward 8K. 4K is merely a pit stop.
Click to expand...
I think the problem now is lenses being good enough for 4K and 8K, and storage, and whatnot. I mean lenses now you can't really have them wide open on F1.4 or 2 if you want the resolution to be good. Maybe that's is less of problem on bigger sensors closer to 65mm...

Anyways, pixels are important for VFX-plates, but if going for 2K then who cares...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top