FS7: Upgrading to an amira from fs7?

[allenfacemire]

The Amira is absolutely an upgrade, it's a move from a 'prosumer' camera to a 'pro' camera. So don't let the specs fool you, not all sensors and processing boards are created equal. And if it makes you feel any better - as for the whole 4k/2k thing, 3.2k on the Amira is actually only 25% less spatial resolution than 4k on the FS7 (so it's not the 75% less that most 2k/4k comparisons would have you believe).

Then there's things like HFR, the Arri looks fantastic in full-frame, right up to its 200fps limit. The FS7 looks rubbish from 61-180fps at full frame, and required the centre crop mode to yield acceptable results.

Personally, I think if you can stretch to an Amira, you should probably try and stretch a little further to the Mini (which is considerably more popular, and can be rigged into something quite practical - though not as practical as the Amira, which is setup beautifully).

So in short, if you've got work to justify it, I wouldn't hesitate to make the upgrade. Although hearsay would have you believe that 4k is here and now and necessary - the reality is a long way short of that, and it'll be years before and significant number of jobs will finish in anything above 2k.

You speak the truth sir but it also comes down to cost effectiveness. The Amira is not in the same class as the FS7. Kind of like comparing a CP-16 to an Arri SR in the film days. Both cameras will make quality images but the SR offers features needed for finer production work, ie, pin registration, high speed, quick change mags, shutter angle, etc., etc.
Calling an Amira move from FS7 as an "upgrade" is an understatement, however you will find that after you pay for the box, the ancillaries may cost as much or more than the actual camera, lensing in particular.
That said, if I had a gig that would offset the move, I'd leap on it like white on rice.
Again, there is much more involved than just getting another camera. You would be getting another system that will accommodate very little from your FS7 package.

 

[JPNola]

"Then there's things like HFR, the Arri looks fantastic in full-frame, right up to its 200fps limit. The FS7 looks rubbish from 61-180fps at full frame, and required the centre crop mode to yield acceptable results."

Not doubting a thing you say there, but can you elaborate? Looks rubbish in what way?

 

[Nirv]

"Then there's things like HFR, the Arri looks fantastic in full-frame, right up to its 200fps limit. The FS7 looks rubbish from 61-180fps at full frame, and required the centre crop mode to yield acceptable results."

Not doubting a thing you say there, but can you elaborate? Looks rubbish in what way?

I think it would be more accurate to say that full frame HFR _can_ look rubbish from 61-180fps. You have to pick your battles and avoid regular or fine patterns that are going to alias. I've shot plenty of kite surfing using full frame HFR on the FS7 and it looks stunning, however, when I've shot the surfers preparing to leave the shingle beach it was most definitely 'rubbish'. Now there's a centre crop there's far less chance of 'rubbish' happening but who wouldn't want full resolution slo-mo up to 200fps?

 

[Grug]

"Then there's things like HFR, the Arri looks fantastic in full-frame, right up to its 200fps limit. The FS7 looks rubbish from 61-180fps at full frame, and required the centre crop mode to yield acceptable results."

Not doubting a thing you say there, but can you elaborate? Looks rubbish in what way?

Aliasing, line-skipping artifacts, and all of the additional compression chaos those things add to an image. The F5 has the exact same issue. Over 60fps, you have to use it in crop sensor mode, it's the only way to be safe.

 

[Donny 123]

Because Amira is only 2880K sensor in the first place maybe ;

 

[Grug]

Because Amira is only 2880K sensor in the first place maybe ;

I'm sure that helps. Also compressing to ProRes instead of XAVC (which is a stronger and more complication compression scheme).

 

[Liam Hall]

Amira+Cabrio for £500/d is hard to find in Germany. (Any hint or offer is welcome)

http://vmi.tv/equipment/125/arri-large-sensor/1036/arri-amira-hire-london-uhd-4k

 

[Donny 123]

A few draw back of the Amira.. heavy as hell.. up res UDH.. and 50w power draw..!! you,ll get just over 2hrs with a 146 WH battery without anything else attached ..!

 

[TheHHgallery]

What about lowlight capabilities? Are the 3200iso usable on the arri sensor? Since there is noise supression i can go up till 5000 on the fs7 and its still acceptable

 

[Gene Sung]

Aliasing, line-skipping artifacts, and all of the additional compression chaos those things add to an image. The F5 has the exact same issue. Over 60fps, you have to use it in crop sensor mode, it's the only way to be safe.

Yeah, the HFR on the FS7 is pretty bad, especially for wide shots. For shallow DOF close ups, it's much better. I wish Sony could do something about it. On my new Scarlet-W, the 120fps is so clean compared to my FS7. S-W is great at 120fps but starts to go downhill after that, but even at 180fps, it's still better than the FS7 at 180fps.

I've seen Amira test footage at 200fps and it's so nice.

 

[ChristopherA]

I mentioned before, but I'll say it again. The Panasonic Varicam LT looks amazing. It basically is everything the FS7 is on paper, but does it better. The dual-iso (ISO 800 and 5000) make it crazy versatile . The size and weight are comparable to the FS7. It's more solidly built, and if the RAW rollout this summer goes well, it could actually do the RAW that the FS7 always promised but never delivered.

It could be a strong option for someone looking to upgrade that doesn't want to shell out the money for an ARRI.

 

[Grug]

What about lowlight capabilities? Are the 3200iso usable on the arri sensor? Since there is noise supression i can go up till 5000 on the fs7 and its still acceptable

I saw 3200 ISO from the Alexa projected on a 4k Christie the other week, and was blown away by how good it looked. I'd always assumed it was unusable, but properly exposed, you could absolutely use it in a pinch. And I'd be wary of Sony's ISO claims for their current cameras, I tested an FS7 recently, and it's '2000 ISO' base was actually only '1000 ISO' (just like my F5). So there's a good chance that the '5000 ISO' you're happy with, is actually only 2500 ISO in reality.

 

[nyvz]

I saw 3200 ISO from the Alexa projected on a 4k Christie the other week, and was blown away by how good it looked. I'd always assumed it was unusable, but properly exposed, you could absolutely use it in a pinch. And I'd be wary of Sony's ISO claims for their current cameras, I tested an FS7 recently, and it's '2000 ISO' base was actually only '1000 ISO' (just like my F5). So there's a good chance that the '5000 ISO' you're happy with, is actually only 2500 ISO in reality.

With Sony doesn't that depend entirely on your LUT? Or were you testing the ISO to the actual SLOG2/SLOG3 spec? Sony can be weird since they set odd middle grey values so their ISO2000 looks like the ISO1000 of another camera because their ~42IRE values are the same, but Sony SLOG2 for example is spec'd with middle grey at 32IRE. Makes very little sense but it's always a good reminder than ISO and middle grey are meaningless unless you fully understand the way the systems operate and how it affects exposure and post. That said Sony's specs seem like wishful thinking on any camera besides the F65/F55/A7SII where you get good results even at "base ISO" with 6EV highlight DR. Pretty much all the other Sony cameras need to be pulled a stop or more relative to the Sony spec to avoid noisy footage...

Yeah if you look at pretty much any test between Arri Alexa/Amira against all the other digital cinema camera competitors it quickly becomes clear that it has some really special stuff going on even for low light. Granted you can shoot in lower light with some of the adjustable gain cameras but then you're loosing as much as 4-6stops of highlight range in a camera that already couldn't keep up with Arri's highlights...

 

[Donny 123]

"Yeah if you look at pretty much any test between Arri Alexa/Amira against all the other digital cinema camera competitors it quickly becomes clear that it has some really special stuff going on even for low light. Granted you can shoot in lower light with some of the adjustable gain cameras but then you're loosing as much as 4-6stops of highlight range in a camera that already couldn't keep up with Arri's highlights..."

What adjustable gain camera,s.. ? ISO is just gain .. what camera are you losing 6 stops of highlight .. presuming your talking about shooting log?.. Arri has less pixels 2880.. so they can be bigger.. better for low light.. but i dont think their high light handling is any better than say a F5/55.. and not as good as a F65..

 

[Nate Weaver]

i know that it feels like downgrading specwise plus the sensor is six years old. But the picture is still stellar.
i also worry arri is going to drop something new soon.

Yeah. You can't learn everything about cameras on the internet, and the folly of following specs and bullet points becomes apparent after you've shot some jobs on all the cameras. Don't get lost in specs. And the only people I know required to deliver 4K these days are showrunners for Netflix. Everything else is 1080 delivery.

Also, on the subject of a Mini or Amira getting outclassed soon: Arri will come out with a higher res sensor someday. The newly shipping SXT is the only camera in the lineup with the electronic backend to handle it, and it's in another price category above the Amira/Mini. So a 4-6K "Alexa" will be a $90K camera, and the media/storage infrastructure to handle it will be on a crazy level not unlike what exists now for the Alexa 65.

BTW, you can download Alexa 65 footage on the Arri FTP if you have a fat connection. It's beautiful and amazing, but all those extra pixels would add absolutely zero to the footage I get paid to deliver now. I can deliver the same quality image with my Mini (and used to with my Amira).

So, for those following at home:

Alexa Mini $50K+
Amira $40K +

Alexa SXT or hypothetical 4K wunderbeest: $100K +

BTW, In the US, there was just a price break on the Amira and Mini. Amira Premium at $40K. Amira Advanced around $36K

Also, experience talking here. Don't buy a camera for a specific job unless you have a solid booking or a signed contract. Unless you have the money to invest anyway and it won't hurt if the job never happens. Reduser classifieds are littered with people who bought gear for jobs that went away.

 

[Nate Weaver]

Arri has less pixels 2880.. so they can be bigger.. better for low light.. but i dont think their high light handling is any better than say a F5/55.. and not as good as a F65..[/COLOR]

I've owned both. The difference between Arri and F55 is that Arri rolls off those highlights in camera before log encoding. Sony might too, but if they do, they are doing much, much less of it. IMO Arri has this all over every other camera out there.

BTW, if you see get eyes on the right (or wrong) Alexa images out there, you can see that Arri has to deal with the same noise issues, the same fixed pattern noise that every other manu struggles with. They just use much more computing power in camera to clean it up and hide from end user. There's a video on Vimeo about the making of the Alexa 65 with interviews from two Arri employees. It's incredibly educational.

 

[Donny 123]

Ok thanks for the info Nate.. dont get me wrong its an amazing camera.. and priced so too.. but for doc work only.. the Amira is a very heavy camera.. and eats batteries for breakfast.. if you are just a tiny bit off centre with your eye.. the VF gets a bit weird too.. for those reasons there are other camera,s I,d rather use.. and if shot in log ..with a competent colorist .. other camera,s can get very very close to the Arri.. if shooting Arri RAW.. 12 bit log encoded .. then the Sony 16 bit could be argued to be a better route..
But yes of course a very fine camera.. esp narrative /commercials where you are not having to lump it around all day .. !

 

[David Kudell]

Why not a Red Weapon, or Scarlet-W? I've thought about the Amira before too, but for having one camera that can do everything, I think the new Reds are a much smarter choice. Having shot with the Dragon sensor, I can tell you that the image is extremely close to the Arri. Look at TV shows like Better Call Saul for example, shot on Dragon.

The Arri has amazing color science, but the Dragon is really close there as well, especially if you grade from RedLog. Plus you get Raw and ProRes options built in. For much less cost than an Arri. Then the advantage is you can rig the Red to be tiny and use it on sliders, gimbals, and the interchangeable lens mounts are great. Not to mention the electronic lens control means you can use follow focus with electronic lenses. The only disadvantage of the small form factor of the Red is is shoulder mounting can be a little bit of a pain, as you need to get some kind of rig like a Zacuto.

 

[Nate Weaver]

Ok thanks for the info Nate.. dont get me wrong its an amazing camera.. and priced so too.. but for doc work only.. the Amira is a very heavy camera.. and eats batteries for breakfast..

An Amira now costs a little bit more ($2k?) than what I spent on my F55+finder in Jan of 2013.

I agree with the Amiras weight. When I first got it, it didn't bother me so much, and honestly, the quality of the images and ease of use every time made me say "Well, it's heavy, but it's worth it". Batteries, eh, I dunno. I get 1:45 out of a Dionic 90, doesn't kill me. Later I realized the weight changed how agile I am in doc situations, but it was not a deal killer.

if you are just a tiny bit off centre with your eye.. the VF gets a bit weird too..

Minor point, but they replaced all those EVF optics, most of them for free. New Amiras and Minis don't have that prob.

for those reasons there are other camera,s I,d rather use.. and if shot in log ..with a competent colorist .. other camera,s can get very very close to the Arri.. if shooting Arri RAW.. 12 bit log encoded .. then the Sony 16 bit could be argued to be a better route..

It could be argued if you're only looking at spec sheets. In practice both Prores 444 LogC and Arriraw make better images. I shot a lot of raw on my F55, not missing it.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I just see a bit of hearsay and bordering on misinformation on Arri gear in this forum, and since I was very early on in the F55 experience, and F3 before that, I can speak a bit honestly about Sony vs. Arri. Arri is not perfect by any stretch.

p.s., most folks turned off by the Amiras weight are just going Mini now, like I did. The Tilta cage sys (Tilta, believe it or not!), is currently about the best system out there to turn a Mini into an Amira functionality-wise without it being a mess.

 

[nyvz]

"Yeah if you look at pretty much any test between Arri Alexa/Amira against all the other digital cinema camera competitors it quickly becomes clear that it has some really special stuff going on even for low light. Granted you can shoot in lower light with some of the adjustable gain cameras but then you're loosing as much as 4-6stops of highlight range in a camera that already couldn't keep up with Arri's highlights..."

What adjustable gain camera,s.. ? ISO is just gain .. what camera are you losing 6 stops of highlight .. presuming your talking about shooting log?.. Arri has less pixels 2880.. so they can be bigger.. better for low light.. but i dont think their high light handling is any better than say a F5/55.. and not as good as a F65..

FS7 and most other Sonys have adjustable gain amplifiers which are available in Custom mode as opposed to CineEI where gain is locked in favor of software EI adjustments, Canon has adjustable gain beyond ISO850, Panasonic Varicam has two gain settings. Arri Alexa does not, but it does have dual gain pathways which allows for quite a wide but fixed dynamic range.

You don't think Arri highlight handling is any better than an FS7/F5/F55/F65? Sony specifies base ISO as having 6stops of highlight DR (and most people using F5/FS7 usually rate even lower to avoid noise) and Arri specifies at least 7stops. And then every stop of gain you increase to match the shadow performance reduces highlight DR even more.... My statement about losing as much as 4-6 stops of highlights was more in relation to Canon where at base you already have about 2 stops less in the highlights and then you can increase gain/ISO as high as 12800 or more but lose up to another 4 stops in the highlights to clean up your shadows for low light shooting.