Arri Alexa and Mysterium-X...

[Michael Brennan]

Actually, and in a digital camera, the camera itself is the "ultimate" light meter, so why would you not put useful tools in camera to help you?

Graeme

It is light meter, colour meter contrast and tonal meter.


Mike Brennan

[Graeme Nattress]

The FLUT™ adjustment tip is a good one, that adjusts the camera in 1/10stop increments right?

Yes. You can use FLUT for that if you want.

Graeme

[Tim Naylor]

Can't wait to see some stills, or even motion if we're lucky. I'm curious though, why ARRI hasn't jumped into the 4k world yet. I'll be the first to admit that 2k is PLENTY resolution for most work, yet it seems like an interesting decision in these times.

According to the test and it seems to make sense: More pixels, more noise, less sensitivity, and more compression. Arri chose: fewer pixels, less compression, less noise, more sensitivity.

Personally, I don't think 4k (which for a variety reasons RED isn't quite 4k) really makes a significant difference when viewing. I've seen many a 2k show on a big screen and rez is just fine. Colorimetry, lattitude and work flow are the biggies. Being able to make a 1080 Pro Rez 444 while recording to Arri Raw at the same time, eliminating transcoding is huge. The labor costs alone make the price difference seem less.

I always wished RED went for a low noise high sensitivity 2k chip with less compression. Maybe Alexa will push it.

[Tim Naylor]

Amazing test.

I think this test (or the summary of this test) bites. No direct A/B comparisons. No list of the exact specs, lenses or settings they used. Hopefully, we'll see the real test parameters and can make some objective decisions.

As of now it's just digital cheerleading. And how it's better than film is unclear. Sure it may eclipse it in acquisition expense but there's no objective criterion mentioned in how it beats film in performance. Can you pull more lattitude than a telecine? What's it's clip threshhold compared to film? That for me is always a deal breaker if I had the choice.

[Graeme Nattress]

Tim, you forget though that when you downsample the higher resolution, you get less noise, and when you project the full resolution image at full resolution, the pixels being a smaller amount of screen area means any noise is smaller and harder to see. The lower the resolution of the image, for the same projected image size, you need even lower noise to begin with. Nothing is ever a free lunch...

And not least you need a good pixel on the sensor and the M-X pixel is very good.

The other benefits of the higher resolutions include less moire / aliasing, better defined edges, better MTF etc.

Graeme

[Tim Morten]

"The Studebaker brothers, having become the world's leading manufacturers of horse-drawn vehicles, made a transition to gasoline engines in 1904, but they continued to build horse-drawn vehicles until 1919."

4K and beyond is where we are all headed. There will be hold-outs.

[Jannard]

According to the test and it seems to make sense: More pixels, more noise, less sensitivity, and more compression. Arri chose: fewer pixels, less compression, less noise, more sensitivity.

Personally, I don't think 4k (which for a variety reasons RED isn't quite 4k) really makes a significant difference when viewing. I've seen many a 2k show on a big screen and rez is just fine. Colorimetry, lattitude and work flow are the biggies. Being able to make a 1080 Pro Rez 444 while recording to Arri Raw at the same time, eliminating transcoding is huge. The labor costs alone make the price difference seem less.

I always wished RED went for a low noise high sensitivity 2k chip with less compression. Maybe Alexa will push it.

Tim... with all due respect, there are now about 3000 people who can attest that there is a viewable difference between 1080P/2K and 4K. Also... your generalization about pixel size is just not valid. A larger pixels does not necessarily have less noise. I'll 1st point to our own program. The M and M-X sensors have the same pixel size, yet one is 2 stops less noisy and can be pushed much more than the other. It is all about pixel design.

It appears that the Arri is showing 13.5 stops from their DRTC test. Same as we are showing from the same test. They have a bigger pixel. Both sensors feel most at home at ISO 800.

Jim

[sbroock]

From the perspective of Network Television, I really see these cameras as being mutually beneficial and not mutually exclusive. There really is a place for both. In some very rapid turnarounds, the ProRes work flow of the Alexa is attractive. In longer form, however, where you have time to work with the superior resolution of the RED, it's brilliant. Frankly, I can even see where the AVCHD 4/3 Panasonic will be a great tool.

We work with so many mixed formats on a daily basis, I can tell you that the real question is the flexibility of your NLE. In that regard, it seems like RED and Arri are answering the same question -- How can I make the Producer's life easier?

RED pushes others to focus on the changing needs of the industry (and brother, let me tell you, they are changing fast) and deliver solutions.

It's great .. and the more the merrier. One camera will not cannibalize another.

Own an early RED 1 (with MX upgrade), going stage 2 for the Epic, and will probably buy a Scarlet or two ... The work of Arri and others is great news. Cheer them on. It just helps make a complete end to end digital production and delivery pipeline the new normal.

[Tim Morten]

The work of Arri and others is great news. Cheer them on. It just helps make a complete end to end digital production and delivery pipeline the new normal.

Agreed... I'd rather not spend $77k on a camera that was obsolete the day it was released though. (Arri-apologists, feel free to jump on me en masse now - "ProRes without a transcode is SO great!", and "2K is good enough!" as your resounding cries). :)

- Tim

[Jason Sinclair]

This thread makes me laugh. Who ever can't see the obvious deserves the non obvious.