Has anybody seen the show "Awake" ? Alexa is looking ... amazing.

L

L1N3ARX

Well-known member
The ARRI Alexa has always been impressive, but I'm really really digging the look it's producing on Awake. I mean, I completely thought it was shot on 35mm until I checked IMDB. I think this is the only camera that can actually substitute for shooting on actual film stock. Does anyone here use this camera? Perhaps one day I will get to lay my hands on this beast.
 
Yes I've used it a lot. It's a pleasure to work with. Everything is exactly how I would have designed it.
 
I saw the films "Drive" (Twice) and "In Time" at the theatre and I am very impressed with the Alexa. An amazing camera.
 
I wish ARRI would make a little "baby Alexa" for about 20k.

As we all know technology means that Alexa quality (image wise at least) should be available for under 10k one day reasonably soon.

I wonder when that day will be? Five years?
 
The thing with the Alexa is that not only does it look like film, but it works exactly how you want it to work. Though the Red is cheaper and gives similar images resolution-wise (I don't think it looks as good, but that's a different argument), I am not a big fan of the way Red works as a camera system. With Arri you benefit from their wealth of experience as a camera maker. The Alexa does seem to be more and more prevalent on shoots I've been working on - I do try to sway people over to Alexa from Red whenever I can ;)
 
jax_rox said:
The thing with the Alexa is that not only does it look like film, but it works exactly how you want it to work. Though the Red is cheaper and gives similar images resolution-wise (I don't think it looks as good, but that's a different argument), I am not a big fan of the way Red works as a camera system. With Arri you benefit from their wealth of experience as a camera maker. The Alexa does seem to be more and more prevalent on shoots I've been working on - I do try to sway people over to Alexa from Red whenever I can ;)
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. Technically, red footage is out of this world amazing, in slow motion especially, it's just unreal. But that said, in regular 24p it doesn't hold any kind of cinematic appeal for me. I like red for watching a high def production, just not anything narrative based. No matter what movie, how it's graded, what lenses are used, it looks like video. Not that it should be the only thing that matters, but I'm definitely a sucker for the Alexa and how it seems to mimic the characteristics of film stock so freakin well. When its technology finally trickles down to anything around the 10-20k level, I will go bankrupt to get my hands on it.
 
L1N3ARX said:
I like red for watching a high def production, just not anything narrative based. No matter what movie, how it's graded, what lenses are used, it looks like video. Not that it should be the only thing that matters, but I'm definitely a sucker for the Alexa and how it seems to mimic the characteristics of film stock so freakin well. When its technology finally trickles down to anything around the 10-20k level, I will go bankrupt to get my hands on it.
Click to expand...

I used to think the red looked like video, but then when I looked further into it, it was mainly just Steven Soderberg's visuals aethetics and not the camera lol. I think the main culprit that makes things look digital is just how highlights clip and lighting techniques. Luckily the new Red and the Alexa have such great dynamic range and highlight detail...

The Red looks very good, and very filmic in the new Spider-Man trailer, Prometheous trailer, the new Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, Pirates of the Carribean on Strangers Tide. The Hobbit looks like LOTR (shot on film) but sharper and cleaner.

I saw Drive twice too. Also saw Hugo and Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close and Melancholia... great stuff. But honestly I don't think I could tell a difference between the new Reds and the Alexas if they were helmed by the same talents.

I was very impressed how In Time looked, and I believe it was only shot in 2k on the Alexa too. I'm guessing alot of TV shows are in 2k as well. Doubt they'll be a sub 20k budget Alexa... I think that's where the red scarlet or canon C300 will fill that gap.
 
You raise some good points Lammy. I like Soderbergh but Haywire was a letdown and looked very much like video. Same for Dragon Tattoo. There was something "off" about its look. Social network looked beautiful though, but I dont think I'd say it looked like film. In Time looked great. I didn't even know it was shot on Alexa. Hugo 3D looked like video to me. Didn't like it. The Stranger Tides trailer has a bit of a film look. Didn't see it in the theater or on blu-ray yet. Perhaps projection makes a huge difference in these matters.

The Hobbit and Spiderman look beautiful so far. This makes things a bit confusing. You don't get the "look" for free with these cameras apparently. (Or maybe you do with the Alexa.)

With film, you definitely get the aesthetic for free. Maybe because of grain and rolloff.
 
With any modern camera, you can get any look you want if you spend enough in post. Red's raw will cost you the most to get ANY look, Alexa much less with a great out-of-camera image ready to go - yet still with plenty of ability to push things around differently later.

"Film" look is a dead issue, to me - and this comes from a guy who still owns an Arri 35-3 and a closet full of rawstock. New aesthetics are emerging and I'm ready to let go of the "film vs video look" thing and embrace each image for it's own beauty, regardless of which dead technology it reminds one of.
 
I agree with most of what you said. Don't you find it a bit curious that out of the movies shot on RED, or at least the ones that achieved a fairly decent "film look", they were all shot on the RED one / mx. Social network, book of eli, stranger tides etc. All the new epic / scarlet stuff really screams high def video with a nice cinematic tinge, but definitely not film. That said, they're all fantastic cameras with their own purposes. I'd love the chance to shoot on Alexa and actual film stock just once before it completely goes away.
 
When they have images that are 5K resolution, the filmmakers just be precious and want to keep it as pristine and clean as possible - forsaking the much loved and saturated film grain that we all came to love. I think it's just a case of changing tastes and aesthetics.

Personally, I'd still grain the hell out of everything because I love that feel. And my favourite shows were always shot on 35mm... (Friends, Sex and the City, LOST, Nip/Tuck) but yeah if new shows add in that nostalgia and look with the new Digital cameras I am all for it!
 
nothing, you make an interesting point. However, I feel that post can't possibly be that expensive. Even indie guys who post Red footage on the web seem to come away with great non-videoy results. In fact, check out Ruiari and Macgregor's feature. It looks incredible:
http://vimeo.com/26900959
 
Ah, I see what you did there. Awake and Imaginary Forces there have that similar aesthetic. Same with films like Children Of Men. You like the veiled low contrast, matte rough, lifted shadows look. Me too. I like to call that the 'Cold Paranoid European' art style. But that look wouldn't fit a film like Hugo, which goes for a contrasty, glossy, shiny fantasy look.

Nothing to do with digital or film. I don't think it's any more expensive or as incredible as other looks. Just a matter of story and taste really...
 
Agreed, but even Cassavettes films had great dynamic range and didn't slam the highlights into a brick wall. It rolled them off gracefully and that was 1970s film stock. Compare apples to apples. Spielberg shoots on film. Compare Kodak Vision to Red and Alexa. War Horse looked very clean. Did it go through a DI? From what I understand, Spielberg is a photochemical guy...
 
I've seen film that looks terrible, and video that looks terrible, and vice versa. Honestly...I can't even tell anymore what looks "cinematic" or "filmic". It's all blurring together.
 
Erich Ocean said:
If only that were true. I suggest viewing a John Cassevetes film to see how good "low budget" film looks like (hint: terrible).

As with all things, it's the talent, not the tools.
Click to expand...

Well, yes... and NO!. I think that the cinematography in "A Women Under the Influence" is beautiful. I give you that "Shadows", "Faces" "Husbands". "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" and "Opening Night" have a look that can best be described as "Gritty" (I am being kind). However, I look at "A Women Under the Influence", made by the same filmmaker, using equivalent tools and resources, and I realize that Cassavetes knew exactly what he was doing and, on his more "Gritty" looking films especially, made specific aesthetic choices about the look of each of his films. I understand not finding the cinematography of the "Gritty" films not entirely pleasing, but I think that if there had been an effort to shoot these films in a manner more akin to standard Hollywood cinematography would have made them into entirely different films and that they would not have had the impact that Cassavetes wanted.
 
Erich Ocean said:
I suggest viewing a John Cassevetes film to see how good "low budget" film looks like (hint: terrible).
Click to expand...

Wow. I'm always surprised by how subjective this all is. I think pretty much all the main Cassevetes films are some of the most beautiful films ever made.

I think they are beautiful films just like Days of Heaven, The Godfather, Raging Bull, Red Shoes etc. Cassevetes films are just a diffferent style: raw, gritty, natural.

I would go to the highest Aesthetic Court in the Universe to defend Cassevetes films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top