Camera

Back to Camera...

ARRI Alexa LF Camera (new) (9 replies and 9 comments)

Zippy
9 months ago
Zippy 9 months ago

Hi Roger,

Just saw ARRI introduced a new ARRI camera. Any desire to use this camera? 4.3K output.

It's right in the middle between 3.4K and 6.5K.  I know resolution is not always that important. 😉

https://www.arri.com/largeformat/»

 

Gregg
9 months ago
Gregg 9 months ago

I guess it all depends on those new Arri Signature Primes.

dmullenasc
9 months ago

Someone told me that 35mm and higher, the regular Master Primes should cover the LF sensor.

JConnor
8 months ago

I also believe I heard the Master Primes will only cover the 16x9 Sensor mode which is cropped in a little but will still record UHD.

TetraVaal
8 months ago
TetraVaal 8 months ago

How cool would it be, if Deakins teams up again with Villeneuve for 'Dune', and they give this camera a shot.

jthomsg
8 months ago
jthomsg 8 months ago

I don't get the need for faster cameras that give you all the resolution in the world, it just seems American filmmakers are so deeply engrossed to technology, when filmmaking has got nothing to do with how new and shiny your camera looks or what higher resolution it can shoot in. All this stuff won't make anyone's movie better. I na way, I'm beginning to resent digital, because they're just milking it and coming out with a new camera every 2 years. Back then everyone just used film and no one cared abut how new and shiny the camera was. 

dmullenasc
8 months ago

Yes, but some cared about how new and shiny the film stock was...

You can't blame manufacturers for making and then selling things, that's what they do. And ARRI has been rather conservative in this regards, this new camera still uses the same AlevIII sensor in the other Alexas, it's just cut to a larger size than the regular Alexa sensor.

I actually don't find that most of the directors I work for think a whole lot about camera technology. For the most part, they just want something that works reliably and makes their actors look good. And the camera has little to do with how well a script is written or acted.

dmullenasc
8 months ago

I can't imagine that in some writers room on a series for Netflix or Amazon, the writers say "hey, I hear we are shooting the next season on an Alexa LF camera, I guess we don't have to work as hard on those scripts now!"

dmullenasc
8 months ago

In fact, I think one reason for the popularity of the Alexa, besides the image quality, is that after a period of destabilization, we've had almost a decade where many people are using the same camera technology, so a cinematographer, camera assistant, DIT, director, editor, colorist, etc. can worry less about figuring out something new and go back to just making the movie or TV episode.

jthomsg
8 months ago
jthomsg 8 months ago

I honestly don't see a difference the Alexa makes over shooting on film. The workflow is a lot easier- as that is what everyone says. All I know is that when I see movies on Turner Classic Movies, I'm more often than not mesmerized by what was done in the past. There was the stagey quality, and the beautiful close ups, and the image isn't so pristine, and it just looks better. What exactly is the goal of "perfecting" filmmaking technology? I mean, I think there has to be a level of tradition, where things can no longer be improved. I think the focus should be more about what's in the frame, the level of great writing and acting involved. 

I recently saw 'Sadie Thompson' with Rita Hayworth on TCM, and when I saw the colors, it just looked so different  than how most of the stuff looks today, the only way I can describe how modern movies look is "creamy", they look soft. Just look at the 'Phantom Thread' trailer and you will see what I mean. I don't know much about technology, but maybe it's because ASA is so fast now, that movie lights are minimal, and everything looks the same. Look at the clip of Rita dancing, and it has a more defined look, it's not soft, it looks harsher and better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AWskO8_pFM»

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiHhdnoo8bo»

David M
8 months ago

Phantom Thread was shot on film.

IronFilm
8 months ago
IronFilm 8 months ago

Basically Netflix (and Amazon etc) forced Arri's hand to bring out a true 4K camera they can sell (and not be rental only like the F65 is). 

Otherwise they'd just have waited another year or five until their new S35 4K sensor (which is surely coming one day) was ready for production. 

http://ironfilm.co.nz/sound/» (am a sound recordist in Auckland New Zealand)

IronFilm
8 months ago

And during that time, if Arri hadn't came out with a new true 4K camera, then Sony/Panasonic/RED would have stolen more and more market share away from Arri. This way the Arri Alexa LF keeps the wolves away for a little while longer.

dmullenasc
8 months ago

Amazon allows you to shoot 3.2K on the Alexa for a UHD finish.

simon m
8 months ago
simon m 8 months ago

Do Netflix and Amazon's 4K requirement only apply to 'in house' productions, or does that apply to Indie movies they acquire at film festivals? Thanks.

dmullenasc
8 months ago

Only in-house productions. There are plenty of big Hollywood movies finished in 2K shown on Netflix after all.

simon m
8 months ago
simon m 8 months ago

Great thanks David. Yes, I just wasn't sure if that was changing also. cheers.

StevenBills
7 months ago
StevenBills 7 months ago

I know this is a bit late, but here's the camera requirements according to Netflix:

 

https://backlothelp.netflix.com/hc/en-us/articles/217237077-Production-and-Post-Production-Requirements-v2-1»

Roger Deakins
7 months ago
Roger Deakins 7 months ago

Well, Netfix broke the '4K rule' over the summer. I guess any rule is there to break.

This is such a circular discussion. What resolution would you say 'Citizen Kane' is? Until recently at least, some of one 'restored' version was from a 16mm print. What resolution is 'Once Upon a Time in The West'? Techniscope? Many 'restorations' are made from an IP. You may say that 35mm film negative has a resolution of 4K (and that depends to a large degree on the lenses used, the exposure of that negative, the age of the stock, the temperature of the developer etc. etc.) but an IP does not retain the full negative resolution. And a print off an IP/IN is not even close.That is what audiences have been viewing when viewing film shot on film.

Again, I would ask everyone to take a look at Steve Yedlin's comparison tests. For the most part the resolution 'pronouncements' are bogus. Purely a manufacturer's way to sell more product. But people eat it up. Our films will be better if we shoot in 28K! Of course they will be!

Back to Camera...