Arri's New Camera

[Eric Coughlin]

6k fullframe, 4k S35mm is certainly a strong possibility (it meets the Netflix 4k requirements), but then they'd lose the benefits of oversampling (which have served the 3k for 2k finish Alexa variants so well).

Arri have compression for Arriraw these days. It's Codex's High-Density Encoding (HDE) which shrinks Arriraw files by 40% with zero mathematical loss to image quality. Unfortunately it's currently a purely external measure, so you shoot uncompressed Arriraw, then have to re-encode it when you store/ingest it.

The next gen of their cameras will no doubt incorporate HDE into the actual recording, giving them significant savings in media storage.

As for integrated battery plates, they've always been interchangeable on Alexa. You can detach a v-mount and swap it for a gold-mount easily enough. And having it attached to the camera body saves a HUGE amount of weight compared to all the rigging gack required to attach a whole separate battery plate on to a camera body that doesn't have one (not to mention introducing power cables as an additional point of failure on the camera).

Highly unlikely on their next camera being 6K full frame as Arri has specifically stated in their announcement that it will be a 4K Super35 camera. There's speculation that a later iteration of the LF and 65 would have this new sensor and then be 6K and 8K cameras, respectively. But considering the Mini LF is still new I imagine it will be a few years before an LF replacement comes out, as Arri is not Red in that they don't cannibalize and devalue their own cameras on a yearly basis.

I believe HDE only works for RAW and not ProRes. Correct me if I'm wrong. And as John pointed out, Red has a patent on compressed internal RAW. I don't know how Canon got away with RAWlite; perhaps it's not true RAW.

Perhaps if comparing to the Mini's battery mount which is separate from the camera, but that's mainly due to the location of the fan on the back of the camera, so they'd have to relocate the fan exhaust in order to mount to the back of the camera. Even then, I'd still prefer a battery mount that could be changed out. The Amira's changeable battery mount on the other hand weighs just a few ounces (probably no more than if it was a built-in mount) and has no dangling cables. I see no issues with the Amira's changeable battery mount setup.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Luckily for Arri, Sony and Canon and Nikon messed up making movie cameras giving Arri a lifeline.

But with the latest Canons is that over?

The C700 FF is still a step above the C500 Mark II and C300 Mark III, and more suited and aimed at high end cinema. Yet, not a single big budget movie or TV show I'm aware of has used it. Piece of crap. And it's not because of the price, as the high end doesn't care that much about price and it's still cheaper than an Arri. The lower budget market cares about price, hence the C500 Mark II and C300 Mark III will be popular in that market segment.

But to imply a new lower end camera has any chance whatsoever of competing with the current high end king when Canon's even higher end offering hasn't stood a chance seems short sighted. I'll probably buy a Canon C300 Mark III, and then I'll practically never use it as an A-camera for any narrative work because my Amira is simply a better camera for narrative (and commercial work). That's not because I'm integrated into an Arri ecosystem, or the availability of cameras at rental houses, camera politics, the producer (me) or client (also me) insisted on an Arri, or my familiarity with one system over the other; it's simply because the Arri is better.

Now, sure, for movies say under a million dollar budget where the camera rental cost has more affect on the production budget, the new C-series could compete moreso with Arri.

 

[DLD]

My experience of stills was that I used the high price, low volume exotic Hasselblad H1/Sinar digiback when it was best in class, but there came a time where the small Swiss and Swedish companies could no longer compete with the behomoths from The East who Im sure probabpy have more people in AF department than those entire companies put together trying to deliver a whole camera eco system.

I'll note this as a single sentence.

And you're correct. The high end photo manufacturing has been de facto eliminated by the advances in the consumer segment. Sony A7RIV and its 61 MPX sensor outperforms medium format models of half a decade ago (OK, it's 14-bit vs. 16-bit of GFX 100) and the aforementioned GFX 100 ($10,000 retail) outperforms $50,000 cameras of 2017.

And it has auto-focus to boot.

But the ultra high end fashion/glossy photogs still use Phase One.

Having said that, I do think FX-9, C300 MKIII and C500 MKII will eat into the mid-range of pro cameras. Not every production is "Lawrence of Arabia". Some are "Tiger King" and there Alexa LF with Signature primes are surplus to requirements.

 

[morgan_moore]

But the ultra high end fashion/glossy photogs still use Phase One.

not that Im an influencer, but I canned MF-back in 2005 odd, far cooler than me.. John Wright (https://johnwrightphoto.com/), who I assisted on occasion, went to nikon, and now seems to wear a leica.. clearly having chosen to use the system that he gets most sponsorship for. I think Russel RUtherford ,who I also assisted use 1dx..

 

[ahalpert]

My stills journey was.. film->sinar digital -> DSLR

There certainly is a legit argument that film is the 'best' aquisition format followed by the 16bit files from the hasselblad - so I just got worse over the years.

But being in business, film would not stand todays economic pressures of few takes, ambitous shots and fast delivery time.

Im thinking about what arri need to deliver.

The first thing is probably AF point remote focus so an A/C either focusses (manually) or stabs the point he/she wants sharp without upsetting the camera while also driving variables like the AF speed.

Interesting point. If people want AF that bad then Arri is in trouble because Canon/Sony are decades ahead. Of course, using phase detect pixels may degrade sensor performance.

Film may be better than DSLRs, but my point is that the quality from DSLRs is good enough that the workflow advantages swing the pendulum in digital's favor.

Clearly the same is true (for most directors) with digital video. But I'm not sure the same is true for lower-end cameras vs Alexa.

And in the stills world, you can buy 40MP+ cameras that record 15+ fps 14-bit RAW files for a few thousand dollars. Lots of latitude and resolution to work with.

Yes, digital video is trending that way. But I still think that the cost of a camera relative to the rest of Production diminishes the impact of the premium cost. Even on a low-budget production. But I could be wrong.

 

[Guest]

As long as there's a good 4K option in that 6K camera then fine. Otherwise, ugh, that's twice the data rate of 4K. The data rates particularly shooting RAW on the Alexa 65's 6.5K are huge. The LF at 4.5K is a nice resolution in that it's just a bit more than 4K so if shooting for 4K frame size you can use the extra .5K of space for re-framing. That, and with the future Super35 firmware you can go back to shooting 3.2K when desired.

Data rates are still a concern even on relatively big budget shoots, hence the popularity of ProRes, so I'm not so sure that 6K S35 is what many in this space would want. Even moreso if the camera like all other Arris does not offer a compressed RAW codec which is one way that Red and Canon away with higher resolution without going crazy on data rates.

Why would you want a built-in (non-removable?) battery plate? Being able to switch from V-mount to Anton Bauer mount is a positive feature and adapters add size and weight.

Arri will likely have the ProRes 4K and 2K options.

 

[morgan_moore]

The way camera functions are built into the SRH3.

This is absolutely one way arri can stay aheead indeed, the whole ecosystem and meta data electric stuff.

-Could (like $500 DJI) have 2nd and 3rd camera as distometers

-Some kind of position ometer to aid greenscreen in a 3d space

- all (they are getting there) remote monitors and the like.

Bits that dont make it have a greater DR than the C500mk5 but make it a better film making tool

I reckon theyve got one generation (ie C500mkIV) to find a proper USP

 

[Tamerlin]

Yes, digital video is trending that way. But I still think that the cost of a camera relative to the rest of Production diminishes the impact of the premium cost. Even on a low-budget production. But I could be wrong.

I'm pretty sure you're correct about that, since on the sorts of productions that use Alexas recording to Codex media, a week of camera + media rentals probably costs less than a day's salary for the crew alone, and the stars get paid a lot more than the crew.

 

[morgan_moore]

I think the cost of the camera is indeed irrelevant, but you hit a point where the old tech camera just doesnt get used because it slows production.

My hasselblad I had for an age in parralel to my D3, but its crappy focus system just didnt make it out of the van on many occasions.

In PR work my cohort paul onften shoots (stills) on his phone - because the images can be moved fast.. even though he has a 1dxiii round his neck!

The thing with certain AF shots (S35 50mm pushin at F2) I just dont beleive the trad 1st can match AF - and the director will bore of the 1st fluffing it.. and all of a sudden the C500iv is the A cam.

 

[ahalpert]

The thing with certain AF shots (S35 50mm pushin at F2) I just dont beleive the trad 1st can match AF - and the director will bore of the 1st fluffing it.. and all of a sudden the C500iv is the A cam.

I think this is true once you can program a focus move into the computer. One of the things I like about pulling focus manually on my S1 on my gimbal is I can choose what to focus on at any given moment and how fast to rack focus. I can go all the way out of focus and back in. (Of course my S1 doesn't have good AF anyway.) But those types of parameters should be easy to build a controller for or write a sequence for on set. And there are many situations where AF could do a better job than I'm doing (following someone at shallow DOF or walking in on a person/object and quickly approaching the minimum focus distance).

 

[Guest]

Focus pulling and operating is part of what draws us to camera work. But if camera work becomes more automated, more people will like using cameras, and we'll move on to something else, like painting or dance, or some tech job. The appeal of things isn't always in the end goal alone. Sometimes we like things because of the way it involves us in the process.

 

[stoneinapond]

Focus pulling and operating is part of what draws us to camera work. But if camera work becomes more automated, more people will like using cameras, and we'll move on to something else, like painting or dance, or some tech job. The appeal of things isn't always in the end goal alone. Sometimes we like things because of the way it involves us in the process.

There's a difference between learning a craft and inspiration....

 

[Guest]

There's a difference between learning a craft and inspiration....

Nic cage's character as the bread maker vs Nic cage as the actor playing the bread maker.

 

[Run&Gun]

That may be true but supposedly Arri still has a 1-stop DR advantage. Resolution is one thing, but until every camera offers more DR than ever needed, I think people will keep paying premium prices for premium cameras. Especially when the rest of the production costs dwarf the cost of camera rental.

It's not necessarily just the DR, it's the roll-off/handling of the highlights and color desaturation that helps separate Arri from the rest of the pack. And yes, when we're talking about big budget movie, the cost of the camera and lens rentals are negligible, a literal drop in the bucket, in comparison to everything else like big name stars with multi-million dollar salaries and even catering.

 

[Guest]

It's not necessarily just the DR, it's the roll-off/handling of the highlights and color desaturation that helps separate Arri from the rest of the pack. And yes, when we're talking about big budget movie, the cost of the camera and lens rentals are negligible, a literal drop in the bucket, in comparison to everything else like big name stars with multi-million dollar salaries and even catering.

JB posted and awesome lens comparison on another thread. Also shows the color differences between three top cameras. definitely a good thread worth checking out, and I believe it highlights what you are saying above.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...ns-Venice-DXL2-Alexa-65-and-lenses&highlight=

 

[stoneinapond]

Nic cage's character as the bread maker vs Nic cage as the actor playing the bread maker.

Hammer on nail.

 

[ahalpert]

Focus pulling and operating is part of what draws us to camera work. But if camera work becomes more automated, more people will like using cameras, and we'll move on to something else, like painting or dance, or some tech job. The appeal of things isn't always in the end goal alone. Sometimes we like things because of the way it involves us in the process.

There's truth in what you say...however for me the entry point to filmmaking is film-watching. I like watching movies. I like watching movies as I shoot them and seeing it happen on the screen and reviewing it, etc. In the sense that I would do whatever it takes to achieve an effect/focus pull or whatever, I would be happy to rely on whatever technological crutch gets me there.

It's all about the shot and the story, no?

 

[Guest]

There's truth in what you say...however for me the entry point to filmmaking is film-watching. I like watching movies. I like watching movies as I shoot them and seeing it happen on the screen and reviewing it, etc. In the sense that I would do whatever it takes to achieve an effect/focus pull or whatever, I would be happy to rely on whatever technological crutch gets me there.

It's all about the shot and the story, no?

No, not even for a director I don't believe that. Nolan still shoots on film for reasons beyond image quality.

 

[ahalpert]

No, not even for a director I don't believe that. Nolan still shoots on film for reasons beyond image quality.

Maybe.

"Q: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that’s moved to digital. What’s your attraction to the older medium?

A: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet."

 

[Guest]

Maybe.

"Q: You and your cameraman, Wally Pfister, are—along with Steven Spielberg—among the last holdouts who shoot on film in an industry that’s moved to digital. What’s your attraction to the older medium?

A: For the last 10 years, I've felt increasing pressure to stop shooting film and start shooting video, but I've never understood why. It's cheaper to work on film, it's far better looking, it’s the technology that's been known and understood for a hundred years, and it's extremely reliable. I think, truthfully, it boils down to the economic interest of manufacturers and [a production] industry that makes more money through change rather than through maintaining the status quo. We save a lot of money shooting on film and projecting film and not doing digital intermediates. In fact, I've never done a digital intermediate. Photochemically, you can time film with a good timer in three or four passes, which takes about 12 to 14 hours as opposed to seven or eight weeks in a DI suite. That’s the way everyone was doing it 10 years ago, and I've just carried on making films in the way that works best and waiting until there’s a good reason to change. But I haven't seen that reason yet."

WP also said in an interview very recently how much he liked shooting on film and what it did for the set and the way it forces everyone to be focused. There is a ritual and a discipline that gets lost on digital sets.