Arri's New Camera

[morgan_moore]

On the UMP I used to accidentally hit the HFR button often because I had the false colour button mapped right next to it.

It used to not be re-assignable but now it is

On the UMP they also have the LOCK switch so you can lock out buttons from accidental presses as well (like Sony and Panny do on some models)

JB

Last time I locked my Sony I nearly sent it in for repair as all the buttons had broken at the same time!

 

[AndreeOnline]

You really use cameras well. I think the moments you capture have more meaning and significance than most movies. Some of the most important images we take our of our loved ones. Did your daughter take that pic of you? the lines, perspective, and balance are actually quite good. Maybe she takes after you. bravo!

Thanks James – really. I suddenly wish we spent more time on the forum taking care of each other, instead of the tug-o-war with the anonymous likes/dislikes.

Yes, Linnéa took the picture, but knowing her, I'm not sure how much intent went into it. I agree that the result was nice! And she's not the one to turn a compliment down, so I'll make sure to forward that! =)

But the 1DC 4K home videos are completely different. It is kind of surreal to have such high quality video from that era. I only wish that more people had access to that level of quality sooner. Movies and TV never needed good quality as they have always had access to lights and sets.

For sure. I still haven't gotten over that my 1Dc was stolen. I had planned to use it as decoration, paper weight... or whatever after it had served its purpose. Fond memories.

 

[Guest]

For sure. I still haven't gotten over that my 1Dc was stolen. I had planned to use it as decoration, paper weight... or whatever after it had served its purpose. Fond memories.

I somehow missed knowing about that. sorry to hear! Yeah, well made camera. was nice just in its form. I travelled for 6months with mine and it went with me everywhere. Had a little case that went on my belt. Had it with me so much the camera felt more like an extension of me than just a camera. Never had a camera that combined portability with usability quite as well. But the P6K seems to be taking over where the 1DC left off pretty well.

Thanks James – really. I suddenly wish we spent more time on the forum taking care of each other, instead of the tug-o-war with the anonymous likes/dislikes.

+1 well said.

 

[Guest]

Red was one of the pioneers of the non-destructive LUT based workflow. In fact, it's one of the things that drew a lot of post professionals toward Red for a long time. And Black Magic, because it's been paying attention and is quite happy to learn from what works for others, mimicked that while developing braw. I think that part was lost on a lot of Black Magic users, but it's still the case that Black Magic camera users can have their LUT cake and eat it, too... the same way that the high end workflows... well, work. I need another synonym.

you are probably correct. I was mentioning the Fs7, because that is when the jargon became less of a camera and post thing, and more of a producer lingo. And the Fs7 was the first Sony camera I used that reflected the log based mentality. But obviously, DSLR's were using flat and cinestyle picture profiles to simulate a log workflow. So many picture styles up to that point did't really utilize the sensor's dynamic rage, often leaving a stop in the highlights blown early. But most things shot didn't exactly require a Log/LUT workflow. it was a lot of straight to web stuff. Sometimes it looked worse because the DP might have been shooting looking at the LOG image and reacting to the log look when lighting and then in adding the hard edged default LUTs in post just looked bad. Dark days. I think over all most people and manufacturers have it pretty well sorted out now. IT was a just a funny couple years. "is that a LUT?" "Is that baked in?"

But yeah, now that you mention it, I am remembering the first time we saw that we didn't have to change the white balance until post. total mind blown. Haha. I can still not think of one time I have ever needed to use that feature, but the whole non destructive thing is fantastic.

 

[Sttratos]

I'm most curious about if they'll improve their high ISO capabilities like most of the competition has. Arri is limited to 3200 ISO. The LF and 65 with the finer/smaller noise are cleaner, but I believe still limited to 3200, which means if you want to go above 3200 ISO, you're out of luck.

Imagine a 4K Super35 Arri camera that could easily swing clean 12,800 ISO. That'd be killer. LF would still have some advantages, but just like the C300 Mark II has some advantages over the C500 Mark II and vice versa, I suspect similar could happen with the 4K Super35 Arri.

Auto-focus would be cool, but I feel unlikely, and not that necessary for most of the projects Arri is aimed at. Varicam and Venice don't have autofocus so I'm not seeing it mainstream yet at the high end.

New color science would be tricky, because then they'd have a camera that doesn't match their older models, and you regularly see using multiple models (65, XT, Mini) on big budget shoots, so they'd really need to get that sensor in all their body styles quickly if they were changing color science.

I wonder if the XT will ever get a shrunken version, as I still see big budget productions using them for some of their advantages, but if they have the technology, perhaps they could shrink it down some.

I'd also imagine higher frame rates in the Super35 4K version, just like the C300 Mark III.


At the most conservative end, same colors, probably same frame rate options as original Mini, same ISO, 4K Super35, everything else the same as LF (viewfinder, media, etc.).

All this talk of 12800 ISO for a camera used in high end movie production just doesn't register with me. These are shoots that can afford a lighting truck.

I see the use in DSLRs where people are starving. But 12800 ISO looks ridiculous, fake and overall out of place in drama. Unless for very specific effects.

Like already said, at some point it starts to look like night for day, or just too much.

If you can't do with a clean 3200 ISO in drama there is something wrong. Even if you are trying to fake a documentary look. That's enough ISO.

Cameras like the EVA1, FS7 etc need high ISO more than any Alexa IMO. I hope Arri will not fall for that and continue to make real cinema cameras. Cinema is lit.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

All this talk of 12800 ISO for a camera used in high end movie production just doesn't register with me. These are shoots that can afford a lighting truck.

I see the use in DSLRs where people are starving. But 12800 ISO looks ridiculous, fake and overall out of place in drama. Unless for very specific effects.

Like already said, at some point it starts to look like night for day, or just too much.

If you can't do with a clean 3200 ISO in drama there is something wrong. Even if you are trying to fake a documentary look. That's enough ISO.

Cameras like the EVA1, FS7 etc need high ISO more than any Alexa IMO. I hope Arri will not fall for that and continue to make real cinema cameras. Cinema is lit.

Quoting Roger Deakins, "My assistant, Andy Harris, and I had tested the Master Primes during their development. For NCFOM [No Country for Old Men] a full set was available so when Andy and I spent 7 or 8 days during prep shooting the opening landscape shots we decided to take a look at the Master Primes at the same time. Once I was used to the lenses I began to use them more and more but my main concern was their speed compared to the S4s. We had a lot of very low light night work on NCFOM and I knew the difference between a 1.4 and a 2.0 would be a great advantage for me. And it was. The spaces I needed to light were so large that I rarely achieved a higher stop than a 1.4 so that was were the Master primes really scored. Previous to using the S4s I was shooting with Zeiss Distagons so I was very glad to be back with true a 1.4 lens."

Clearly simply having access to several lighting trucks does not mean you can still light massive areas that are beyond the capabilities of Hollywood caliber lighting. In many cases you're trying to work with other ambient light such as firelight so you can't simply overpower that ambient light by throwing more artifical lighting with it. So, you either shoot at a faster T-stop or raise your ISO, but having a camera with clean ISO gives you a choice which is very beneficial to have.

I've also seen ISO 1600 used on big budget movies with Arri and it would be cleaner if used with a camera that handled 1600 better (though Arri's noise does tend to be more organic than the competition).

Aside from that, a high end DP shooting with Master Primes may not want to be forced to shoot at T/1.3 due to lack of quality high ISO on a camera. I know Charles PapPert has often spoken in favor of Varicam's dual ISO making it easier to light scenes on his pretty well budgeted shows.

Often in the day time a DP will choose to shoot at T/5.6 (Deakins as well tends to stop down considerably in the day time), which I imagine doesn't always mean they actually want to shoot wide open in terms of shallow depth of field at night, but that they're forced to in order to get basic exposure. Having the ability to shoot at T/13 at night at a clean say 80,000 ISO without needing a crap-ton of lighting for a large exterior night scene would be very advantageous as a DP no matter the budget.

Arri's Super35 cameras also do not currently offer clean 3200 ISO. It gets pretty noisy at 3200 on my Amira. As it is organic, it doesn't look terrible, but it doesn't look great either and I try to avoid it when I can.

 

[CharlesPapert]

To expand on Eric's points, there are many times I have leveraged the dual ISO feature of the Varicam to great advantage. Shooting a scene that incorporates high speed or skinny shutter used to mean planning in advance to light to a notably higher stop (120 fps = 2 1/3 needed to equal 24 fps exposure). With the Varicam we just switch over to the 5000 setting and often I could still afford to dial it back down from 5000. As Eric said, deep stop is another possibility, as shocking as that sounds with today's "shallow or die" ethos! In the past I often had to switch to fast primes for these kinds of shots, but that is hardly ideal, as having a limited number of takes of fast moving subjects is exactly when you don't want to have to put your focus puller under the kind of pressure that T1.4 presents.

I agree that an overly cranked up high ISO version of a night exterior starts to look weird. I like it when you can just see some definition in the night sky, and ambient street lighting looks natural (basically, what we see with our eyes). That's somewhere around 2500/3200 ISO at a 2.8, depending on ambient conditions. So now imagine shooting 120 fps in that situation without having to relight--there's your 12800 ISO.

 

[ahalpert]

I agree with Eric and Charles. Also, give a DP a new tool/option and they will find an interesting new use for it

 

[Eric Coughlin]

The beginning of this video also shows the advantages of higher ISOs.

 

[LochnessDigital]

+1 on High ISO's being just another tool. Lighting still matters; we're not saying throw away all your lights and shoot 12,800 for no reason. Compelling lighting is always about ratios and motivated choices so it isn't going to change that. But what it can change is putting your entire scene at a higher base level. What you do with that is up to you. As the others mentioned, you can stop down, shoot narrow shutter angles, or shoot high speed.

Another aspect of higher ISOs is the ability to light scenes with weaker fixtures if you're not competing against available light: Potentially saving electricity, heat, time, manpower, gasoline, money, etc. etc.

 

[CharlesPapert]

Another aspect of higher ISOs is the ability to light scenes with weaker fixtures if you're not competing against available light: Potentially saving electricity, heat, time, manpower, gasoline, money, etc. etc.

Yep. Forgot that one! I started doing that on stage shows in 2016 and am still doing it (well, you know, was and will be again). My sweet spot with the Varicam is 2000 or 2500 down from the 5000 base. Less than half the wattage required to light the set, and still room for adding stop when needed. 4 bank fixtures can become 2 bank (which makes them lower profile), Litemats become significantly more flexible in punch, units like ETC Lustres that are admittedly underpowered compared to the legacy versions become usable.

 

[Sttratos]

Of course that for some special shots it's useful. Like the NCFOM scene.

But I would say then rent the package for that shot. This is how it was always done. Need slomo? Rent the package for the shot.

Nowadays people want every camera to be like a Swiss army knife. Every camera has to be like a consumer thing. Do everything for you, do everything on the book, do everything all of the time. This is why we have all these paper looking images and Alexa is the only camera currently being sold which can hold any candle to film.

You need to compromise things to get other things. So far Arri has refused to compromise for more Ks, more ISO etc. I think this is why the image looks so good. I'm not saying it should stay ISO 800. I'm just saying don't go full "iPhone stupid" and go for crazy high ISOs and compromise everything.

I'm hoping Arri will not fall for the trap. They have held on so well.

I dislike the way the Varican looks for example. It never looks close to as good as film. Never saw anything shot on it which looks close to as good as film. It always has a TV look. At best it has a polished TV look. The first demo is still engraved in my mind as the worst new cinema camera demo ever. Because everything looked like digital cable TV. Same thing with all the older Sony like F55 and F65. The Venice is a little nicer. But image for image I have never seen anything which would make me choose it over the Alexa yet. It's just playing catch up.

About Deakins, everybody likes to name drop him and I know he's everybody's favorite DP. But he comes from documentary and he basically still likes to light that way. This is the scenario where high ISO would be the best fit. Doesn't mean every DP works that way or should work that way though. I'm glad that there a DPs who still do some more stylized lighting and not everything has to be naturally motivated.

As a side note, I also always found interesting that his work on Blade Runner, which is probably the furthest away he has come from his usual style, was the work which finally earned him his overdue first Oscar. But Deakins is a natural light fan. Of course he will be a high ISO fan. But the way Deakins works is not the defacto standard. Deakins is not the defacto standard. Me personally I prefer the work of several other DPs actually.

I think it will be a question if Arri is happy with cinema and high end features or they want more of the TV scene. TV has always had a lower budget and high ISO is very useful then. But does Arri want the Sony and Varicam slice in TV series, reality shows, sitcons etc? If so, then they will have to bring a high ISO camera.

 

[OliverM]

Of course that for some special shots it's useful. Like the NCFOM scene.

But I would say then rent the package for that shot. This is how it was always done. Need slomo? Rent the package for the shot.

Nowadays people want every camera to be like a Swiss army knife. Every camera has to be like a consumer thing. Do everything for you, do everything on the book, do everything all of the time. This is why we have all these paper looking images and Alexa is the only camera currently being sold which can hold any candle to film.

You need to compromise things to get other things. So far Arri has refused to compromise for more Ks, more ISO etc. I think this is why the image looks so good. I'm not saying it should stay ISO 800. I'm just saying don't go full "iPhone stupid" and go for crazy high ISOs and compromise everything.

I'm hoping Arri will not fall for the trap. They have held on so well.

I dislike the way the Varican looks for example. It never looks close to as good as film. Never saw anything shot on it which looks close to as good as film. It always has a TV look. At best it has a polished TV look. The first demo is still engraved in my mind as the worst new cinema camera demo ever. Because everything looked like digital cable TV. Same thing with all the older Sony like F55 and F65. The Venice is a little nicer. But image for image I have never seen anything which would make me choose it over the Alexa yet. It's just playing catch up.

About Deakins, everybody likes to name drop him and I know he's everybody's favorite DP. But he comes from documentary and he basically still likes to light that way. This is the scenario where high ISO would be the best fit. Doesn't mean every DP works that way or should work that way though. I'm glad that there a DPs who still do some more stylized lighting and not everything has to be naturally motivated.

As a side note, I also always found interesting that his work on Blade Runner, which is probably the furthest away he has come from his usual style, was the work which finally earned him his overdue first Oscar. But Deakins is a natural light fan. Of course he will be a high ISO fan. But the way Deakins works is not the defacto standard. Deakins is not the defacto standard. Me personally I prefer the work of several other DPs actually.

I think it will be a question if Arri is happy with cinema and high end features or they want more of the TV scene. TV has always had a lower budget and high ISO is very useful then. But does Arri want the Sony and Varicam slice in TV series, reality shows, sitcons etc? If so, then they will have to bring a high ISO camera.

It depends on what you think 'film' looks like I guess. Arri has the highlights nailed, way better than anyone else. Even after all these years. As for the look, they chose to emulate Kodak stock as far as I see it. Makes sense, it's been the most used stock in Hollywood since forever, so everyone knows and likes the aesthetics.
But film exists in many variations, brands, stocks, colour styles, ... There is no such thing as 'the' film look. And in many cases, lenses, camera filters, lighting and grading have a bigger impact in terms of making an image film-like than the camera. As long as the camera reaches a certain level of IQ, obviously.

As for higher ISO, why couldn't that be a good feature for an Arri? Nobody is going to stop lighting. But if you can get extra options to work with, why not? If we would have kept doing things 'the way it was always done' we would still be making silent movies. Or never thought of shooting large format. Or, well, just fill in anything 'new' really.
Btw, in a lot of countries movies are made on much smaller budgets. Some look more like glorified tv-shows as well, even though they are shot on Arri cameras.
They would benefit a lot from a feature on their prefered camera that cuts their light package by a third. Or lets them emulate more expensive lighting on their smaller budget. The world is bigger than Hollywood. And although Arri is heavily embedded in Hollywood, they are interested in the market beyond big-budget movies as well.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

Of course that for some special shots it's useful. Like the NCFOM scene.

But I would say then rent the package for that shot. This is how it was always done. Need slomo? Rent the package for the shot.

Nowadays people want every camera to be like a Swiss army knife. Every camera has to be like a consumer thing. Do everything for you, do everything on the book, do everything all of the time. This is why we have all these paper looking images and Alexa is the only camera currently being sold which can hold any candle to film.

You need to compromise things to get other things. So far Arri has refused to compromise for more Ks, more ISO etc. I think this is why the image looks so good. I'm not saying it should stay ISO 800. I'm just saying don't go full "iPhone stupid" and go for crazy high ISOs and compromise everything.

I'm hoping Arri will not fall for the trap. They have held on so well.

I dislike the way the Varican looks for example. It never looks close to as good as film. Never saw anything shot on it which looks close to as good as film. It always has a TV look. At best it has a polished TV look. The first demo is still engraved in my mind as the worst new cinema camera demo ever. Because everything looked like digital cable TV. Same thing with all the older Sony like F55 and F65. The Venice is a little nicer. But image for image I have never seen anything which would make me choose it over the Alexa yet. It's just playing catch up.

About Deakins, everybody likes to name drop him and I know he's everybody's favorite DP. But he comes from documentary and he basically still likes to light that way. This is the scenario where high ISO would be the best fit. Doesn't mean every DP works that way or should work that way though. I'm glad that there a DPs who still do some more stylized lighting and not everything has to be naturally motivated.

As a side note, I also always found interesting that his work on Blade Runner, which is probably the furthest away he has come from his usual style, was the work which finally earned him his overdue first Oscar. But Deakins is a natural light fan. Of course he will be a high ISO fan. But the way Deakins works is not the defacto standard. Deakins is not the defacto standard. Me personally I prefer the work of several other DPs actually.

I think it will be a question if Arri is happy with cinema and high end features or they want more of the TV scene. TV has always had a lower budget and high ISO is very useful then. But does Arri want the Sony and Varicam slice in TV series, reality shows, sitcons etc? If so, then they will have to bring a high ISO camera.

I'm not sure I'm fully understanding your argument here. To me it sounds like you're saying that all high ISO cameras look inferior to Arri, and coming to a conclusion that those cameras offering high ISO is WHY they look inferior to Arri. Just like cameras offering say 8K Super35, using smaller inferior pixels, has led to lower image quality than Arri's 3.4K Super35 with it's larger pixels.

I've never heard anything to indicate that a camera being capable of higher ISOs is detrimental to it's image quality at normal ISOs. Arri caps out at 3200 while the competition all goes much higher. I believe raising the ISO is simply the camera applying electronic gain (forgive my lack of knowledge of proper terminology here) which essentially means that at say the base ISO of 800 there would be ZERO negative affect to the image quality at 800 ISO for the camera to simply have the software and hardware in it to be capable of also doing 80,000 ISO. Consider the C300 which used to cap out I believe at 20,000 ISO, and then later got a firmware update allowing for 80,000 ISO. The firmware update with that new capability did not affect the camera image quality when shooting at ISO 800. Therefore, simply having the ability to go higher ISO (at least on the C300) does not affect a camera's image quality when shooting at lower ISOs.

The Alexa LF with it's larger sensor and smaller noise is said to be about as clean at 1600 ISO as the Super 35 Alexa at 800 ISO. I'd imagine the Alexa 65 would be as clean at 3200 ISO as the LF at 1600 ISO. So, Alexa65 as clean at 3200 ISO as Super35 at 800 ISO. And you're saying that's a bad thing? Because now Avengers or whatever big budget project shooting on the Alexa 65 is using a camera with cleaner 3200 ISO than the Super35 Alexa? I'm sorry, but saying a camera being capable of shooting higher clean ISO is a bad thing makes no sense to me.

Again, if you're making an argument that having crappy looking high ISOs available would be bad then I could see your point. Perhaps Arri could have had 12,800 ISO on their current cameras and it'd look like crap, and then low budget shoots with not enough lighting would use that ISO and there'd be more crappy Arri footage in existence tarnishing their brand. I guess from a marketing standpoint for Arri, I could see the motivation here, but as a DP, I'd prefer the option. I've rarely if ever used 80,000 ISO on my C300 for a shoot, but I kind of like that it's there, as in a super dark environment it can give me footage that would not be possible otherwise. It doesn't mean I'm going to shoot my next short film at 80,000 ISO, but there's really no reason to not have it available if a shoot ever does call for it.

But in any case, crappy high ISO is never what I was talking about, which seems to be what you're talking about. What I was talking about was good quality high ISOs. If Arri can give us Super35 12,800 ISO for example, or less ambitiously, 3200 ISO, that looks as good (or good enough) as their current 800 ISO, then that'd a big deal that would greatly benefit both low budget and big budget shoots. And Arri has essentially done that with their Alexa 65, but at the cost of often having lenses that are slower such that the higher ISO capabilities tend to balance it out (and with faster lenses on large format, the depth of field often becomes exceeding shallow), so to have this capability with Super35 would be stellar.

And I'm not seeing your point regarding Deakins...so he's a documentary filmmaker...and therefore he doesn't count? You said you saw how it could be useful, so why would you not want a useful tool? Clearly there are high end DPs who value quality high ISO, so it seems short sighted to dismiss features they like just because perhaps you in particular do not find it useful for the way you work, or the way some (but clearly not all or even most) high end DPs work.

 

[sgttom]

Deakins said 1600 iso was very useful for 1917, so I am sure 3200 would be all the more useful. That's on a very high end production so low end productions would certainly benefit from it. Of course it comes down to the cost of developing a new sensor to the increase in sales/rental. But eventually they'll have to keep up with the competition in order to stay competitive, so its just a matter of time until their hand's are forced.

 

[Guest]

Arri has already hit certain image quality benchmarks. would be awful if they dropped in image quality because they fit more pixels and better iso, but from all the rumors, it is not a step back in IQ. So, I am plenty excited, and I doubt it will be all that much more expensive than the current Alexas.

The issue is cheap cameras. So few of us can resist the ff35, 6K, iso25,600 clean, raw, compact, IBIS, the kitchen sink, etc. It seems to be the thing that camera companies keep making. Someone must be telling them that it is important. Because none of them made a good 2K camera that featured the best image quality enhancements. No, they went with low hanging fruit and easily understood marketing. 4K was perfect. two letters and already the camera is twice as good as the previous model. Dynamic range was more difficult, 13 or 14 or 15 stops? not even 10% increases. I think a lot of shooters light in studios and don't care about a half a stop.

The way we talk about improvements probably scares the hell to of marketing people:
Marketer - So, you only want 2K, good colour, a robust codec, and 16stops dynamic range?
DVXer - yes.
Marketer - Well, that sounds doable. what would make you upgrade? what would you want next?
DVXer - nothing. that is all i want. I would never upgrade ever again.

 

[DLD]

Deakins said 1600 iso was very useful for 1917, so I am sure 3200 would be all the more useful...
.

Chivo shot a lot of the "Revenant" on Alexa65 since it was pretty much all natural lighting.

 

[AndreeOnline]

Because everything looked like digital cable TV. Same thing with all the older Sony like F55 and F65.

Hmm.

I saw Oblivion on a whim in 2013. I thought the image looked so good I wanted to actively look up what camera they used. It was the Sony F65.

 

[yoclay]

Hmm.

I saw Oblivion on a whim in 2013. I thought the image looked so good I wanted to actively look up what camera they used. It was the Sony F65.

That's right. The F65 looked damned good. Great color. It was just too much of a beast in terms of size and data to be dealt with. The Venice is the natural legacy of that camera. It's what everyone always said they wanted from a next version of the F65 from Sony. I think it now rates just behind the LF in terms of popularity. Certainly Red is behind the curve. That said, it is clear to me that the Venice holds highlights better than any RED, and I am curious to see how Canon is moving towards Dual Gain. Highlight roll-off is the single biggest factor in my opinion in terms of making a "film like" camera. But let's be honest here. In controlled lighting circumstances, many, many cameras now do a great job. Cutting between them and even an Alexa is quite possible and Joe Public would never see the difference anyhow.

 

[combatentropy]

But isn't highlight roll-off a grading thing? Aren't all electronic sensors natively linear?

The Arri does this part of the grading in camera, but could you not do the same thing on computer later, as long as you recorded raw or lightly compressed?

And I keep hearing dual gain as if it were exclusive to Arri. But I remember researching it and finding several sensors that did it. I can't remember all of them, but I remember that at least the Blackmagic Pocket had it (yes, the $1,000 HD model).