Arri Amira and the Demand Beyond 4K?

[Max Field]

I wanted to share a bit on where I've been with gear in the past year or so.

I saw my dream-camera of 6 years, the Arri Amira had slipped well below $10,000 in market price and had to scoop it up along with a great deal I got on some Ultra Primes. I have done a couple small product commercials which I can link below, but I just wanted to say how breathtaking of an experience it is to shoot with Arri Amira.

The ergonomics, button layout, and port layouts are phenomenal for me. The in-camera audio is super convenient. The menus, while not touch-screen are super intuitive by 2010s standards. It has the form factor of a big camcorder but not the weight of a big camcorder. Nice generic media, great internal recording options like 1080p 192FPS. Heat management is cool and quiet in contrast to some other brands I won't mention. There is a camcorder-stye swivel screen on the side of the viewfinder, it tilts any way and does a mirror flip when turning it around, that little feature we take for granted on consumer cameras that professional cameras seldom have! All of these conveniences on paper are generally counteracted with a lackluster imager given this price point... but it is an ALEV3! All the glamour of a movie camera image with all the run-and-gun of a modern ENG camera. A bit of a battery hog but I will live with that given the rest of these great features.

Of course there is one Achilles heel to this story that any working cinematographer will think of while reading the previous paragraph, the maximum resolution is 3.2K or a software upscaled 4K (zoomed in on both in tests can barely tell the difference). And maybe one could argue that 14 stops of DR is low for 2025 but honestly if you can't get a nice image with that many stops then maybe cinematography isn't for you?

Now I run my own production company so I dictate what projects are finished in and my bread-and-butter is 2K for the foreseeable future. I've had talks with Netflix and was told by affiliated producers that a simple upscaling software can be ran on my stuff if we came to a distribution agreement on potential productions.

What I really want to know from all of you is how commonly are your clients demanding footage beyond 4K?? The highest footage fidelity I've been asked for on random jobs was 4K 60p in 2022, though that was obviously not for the most filmic of projects. Are they asking for 6K? 8K? Is this a fad that will die off and people will go and shoot on whatever digital cine camera they want?

It's been a little over a decade and anything beyond a 2K film still doesn't quite feel like a standard we need.

 

 

Edited August 10, 2025 by Max Field
forgot links

[Joerg Polzfusz]

Hi!

I‘m only a hobbyist. So you can probably ignore my thoughts…

A few years ago, everyone said that „4K is overkill and HD is more than sufficient for normal living rooms“. Now that nearly everyone has got an UHD-TV or -beamer, the same people as before suddenly demand 4K-capable smartphone-cameras and 4K-content for their homes.

These days, there are also more and more 8K-TVs (e.g. from Samsung and LG), more and more 8K-beamers for home cinemas, … . Hence, for me it’s obvious that 8K will become the new standard in 2-4 years as nobody wants to buy 8K-capable devices only to upscale UHD- or 4K-content. And the cinemas also won’t stick to „only 4K“ when everyone else has got 8K-devices at home.

[Tyler Purcell]

As ya know, I also was kinda waiting for something to happen in order to acquire a decent digital cinema camera. I thought about waiting long enough for an OG Alexa LF to become worthless, but unlike film cameras, used digital cameras have issues like pixel mapping (hot/dead pixels) on both the imager and viewfinder system. The older these cameras get, the worse the issues get. Plus, Arri charges a lot of money for replacement components like I/O boards, which are very libel to be damaged. After conversing with a few rental houses on some commercial shoots, everyone told me ownership of Arri Alexa's (Amiras as well) was basically a lost cause unless the camera was rented non-stop. One of the houses I rented from all the time, had 12 Mini bodies and 5 were always in circulation for service on average. He said the only way to be a rental house is to co-sign, if you own the gear, you're out of business. 

The other thing which steered me away from Arri was simply the codec. I love Pro Res for mastering, but for camera originals, it's not good. Pro Res is a lossless codec, but it's not capable of being pushed hard in post and the full 4444 12 bit variant is very large, nearly 3x the data rate as 4:2:2 HQ. This means, for post production, you're really gobbling up a lot of data, which in the end, makes owning one, really not worth it. Every single Alexa show I colored, I was disappointed with the noise. The image always broke apart in the blacks when you tried to recover. If lit perfectly and I mean studio lighting, you can sometimes recover OK, but the Pro Res codec's simply fall apart when you push them too hard. Arri RAW is also way overkill size wise and just doesn't really work for the majority of post workflows. 

Blackmagic has the perfect post codec and seeing as post is where most of the work is done, to me the codec means a lot. It's just, Blackmagic never had a camera. Great codec, poor cameras. 

Then they finally released a professional camera and I spent a year researching, testing, understanding the workflow and eventually had the cash to purchase. The URSA Cine 12k, does everything I want a camera to do, outside of its size, which is easy to deal with. 

It has a very fast imager refresh, better than the Alexa 35 in 8k 1.85:1. 
It has excellent color science and color fidelity in any resolution or compression. 
It uses the wonderful BRAW codec which is native to FCP, Resolve and Premiere on Windows and Mac. 
It can shoot Full frame 12k or S35 in 8k up to 240fps IN 8K, with a single HFR button touch. 
It has close to 17 stops of dynamic range, I have proven this in my own tests. 
It has interchangeable lens mounts, with AF coming next year. 
It has built-in ND filters, full-sized XLR audio with AES compatibility, easy to use ENG controls, etc. 
It has dual monitors PLUS a beautiful OLED viewfinder that blows the doors off the Arri. 
It can work on both 16v and 28v battery systems, making it extremely versatile with power. 

It has 2 downsides; It's a fat pig, but so is the Amira or classic Alexa. The other down side is that it's kind of a one trick pony ISO wise, I think much past 1600 and it's not really usable. WAY more usable than the ALEV-3 imager, oh gosh, blows the doors off it. However, I think BMD could have designed the imager with a 3rd preamp, which had less dynamic range, but kicked the ISO range up. They will eventually do this, but I assume it will be a few years before they do. I've been using it nearly exclusively at 800, 1200 and 1600 thus far and it's been proven to be very good. 

I don't think the price is bad either, the camera WILL hold its value because it's just that good. Nobody has made anything like it, especially with this lovely codec and full frame factor, nobody. Red and Canon both have the same codec issues and dynamic range issues, it's like they copied one another on their newer cameras, so they're kinda junk. Sony FINALLY fixed the Burano and Venice II, but WAY out of the price range on both. So what is there? Lumix? Come on. 

BMD have solved some of these issues with the Pyxis, which is something I wanted to release before I ordered the full URSA Cine. I got the bigger one because the Pyxis body doesn't have the ability to run the same HFR, it has worse refresh rate and of course, you're stuck to Sony batteries, which means limited runtime. I wanted something I could throw a battery on for a concert and have it last 8hrs and the Cine can do that. 

I think once Arri gets bought out, the prices of older Arri cameras will tank, the market will be flooded with used/older cameras not selling and Mini's will be $5k very fast. When that happens, all the kids will gobble them up and put them on display as they keep shooting with their Lumix or FX3 cameras. The likelihood an older camera will be worth much is dwindling fast now, if you've always wanted an Amira, I think people shortly will be desperate to get rid of them. Kinda like the F55's right now, there are just so many of them for sale and people are just aren't buying them. Those old cameras will have a fade to black, mostly thanks to Blackmagic and the fact for sub $10k you can build a Pyxis kit that will SMOKE the older cameras, no contest. 

 

 

[Jon O'Brien]

To put things in context, Tyler can be a bit negative. I think Tyler reckons he's always at the top with his gear. As for 12K, 8K, 4K ..... yaaaawwwwwwwn.

Audiences just don't care. Technophiles/those who must have the biggest numbers/highest fidelity electronic specs are literally focusing on the wrong thing.

Edited August 11, 2025 by Jon O'Brien

[Bryan Fowler]

Did you like Avengers? Skyfall? I'd be happy if I shot something today that looked as good as those, and they were shot on alexa classic. 2.8k capture and 2k delivery. 

Resolution can be nice to have. But for me I'd rather shoot 1080p on Alexa, than 8k on a DSLR. (not saying you can't make beautiful stuff with both)

For a real life answer, it seems for my clients, the smaller the target presentation screen the more the client worries about resolution. Keep on shooting with that Amira, it's a great camera. (coming from an owner of an Amira, and 2x Alexa35s)

[Tyler Purcell]

43 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

To put things in context, Tyler can be a bit negative. I think Tyler reckons he's always at the top with his gear. As for 12K, 8K, 4K ..... yaaaawwwwwwwn.

Audiences just don't care. Technophiles/those who must have the biggest numbers/highest fidelity electronic specs are literally focusing on the wrong thing.

Why shoot 35mm and 65mm? Both are far superior to 4k digital. Yet, they are still the "industry standard". 

Higher resolution is the dominant factor between 16mm and 35/65 formats, along with less grain/noise and field of view. People associate a professional production with the field of view inherent in those formats. When you resort to 16mm for instance, finding that same look, can be challenging even with 50D and the proper lenses. 

So yes, resolution is absolutely a factor and has been forever. With that said, the larger field of view look is also a factor with today's filmmaking and there is a shift to a more VistaVision type look in cinema.

When you start with greater resolution, you open up a lot of doors;

- Reframing in post which includes stabilizing without losing quality. 
- Open gate shooting allows for matting at your discretion in post. 
- A higher resolution product will have more longevity in the future. 
- 4k finishes have WAY higher quality, especially with streaming due to the codecs.
- No need to upscale or upses as tech shifts. 

However, as I've said before, the game isn't just about resolution. The reason 12k imagers exist, is not because there is a demand for 12k imagery, it's because when you use a RGBW color filter, you must have more pixels. So why care about RGBW if so many great imagers don't have it? Simple; it doesn't have color aliasing issues, which are inherent in ALL Bayer pattern imagers. When you're trying to create "filmic" images, the last thing you want is to see aliasing between hard colors like red and blue. RGBW imagers solve this problem by having the same amount of color pixels as luminance pixels. The newer designed RGBW imager in the URSA Cine 12k and Pyxis 12k, go one step further by having larger pixels, which allow more dynamic range. 

So what I'm getting is:

- Top in class imager refresh rates
- Greater color fidelity (16 bit linear) 
- Higher dynamic range 
- Full frame and S35 modes without any quality loss
- Interchangeable lens mounts, with a wide variety of standards
- Easier to stabilize and re-frame in post without loss of quality automatically with Resolve using the internal gyro
- Lighter weight codec (way lighter than pro res or even h265 at similar resolutions)
- Don't need to lower quality to in order to run higher frame rates. 
- A wide range of storage mediums available from USB-C drives, 10G networking, Wi-Fi, CFast and built-in

All of this "tech" you call it, is the same stuff people have talked about for eons with film. We've just slightly changed the tone a bit and now it's digital cinema cameras. We all still nerd out about updated tech, because it's really cool to try and create with stuff that is game changing. You suddenly open up a pandoras box of new people, eager to watch your content just because it was shot on a certain camera system. It's the same with film of course, but not very many people can afford to shoot VistaVision on a regular basis, but with the touch of a red button, I can shoot that same FOV and frame size, without spending a dime. 

So yea, it may be a nerdy discussion, but any camera discussion is going to be nerdy.  

 

[Max Field]

13 hours ago, Bryan Fowler said:

Did you like Avengers? Skyfall? I'd be happy if I shot something today that looked as good as those, and they were shot on alexa classic. 2.8k capture and 2k delivery. 

Resolution can be nice to have. But for me I'd rather shoot 1080p on Alexa, than 8k on a DSLR. (not saying you can't make beautiful stuff with both)

For a real life answer, it seems for my clients, the smaller the target presentation screen the more the client worries about resolution. Keep on shooting with that Amira, it's a great camera. (coming from an owner of an Amira, and 2x Alexa35s)

This is basically the logic I have ran with. There are a ton of films shot on ALEV3 sensors that people considered amazing-looking when they came out but now that an 8K camera is available do academy award-winning films like The Revenant or Blade Runner 2049 suddenly look bad now? I understand that 2-3 more stops of DR plus more pixels can make working with the footage in post easier but the entire point we preach on educational production forums like these is to not fix it in post and get it right at the time of recording.

I've talked my way out of finishing in 4K on productions (despite the fact I had a 6K camera) by explaining to clients that the standard DCP in a movie theater is only 2K. Once they learn that they go "well they're gonna watch it on their phones anyway so anything higher is excessive"

Also as AI crashes into the forefront (while I know it is not quite ready now), eventually finishing resolution will no longer matter. They are going to AI upscale Rocky 3 into 8K and sell it as a remaster. As long as my work does not have the levels or color altered I really don't care what resolution it is shown in. A 4K student film will always look worse than a Kubrick film in 720p.

 

When I first got started on this forum 9 years ago these ALEV3 cameras made sense as the top of the line shooting experiences... With every release past these it feels like diminishing returns.

[Joerg Polzfusz]

I was thinking about this thread: Why should they hire you with a camera from the last stoneage when everyone else has a smartphone that can shoot at higher resolutions…

Also Jon is perfectly right:

20 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Audiences just don't care. Technophiles/those who must have the biggest numbers/highest fidelity electronic specs are literally focusing on the wrong thing.

Yes, I also would also rather watch an excellent movie at 720p than a bad one at UHD. 😉

 

But… streaming services like Disney+ or Netflix only allow you to watch movies at 4K/UHD with the most expensive subscription model. Of course, in order to have subscribers for this model, they need a certain number of videos in 4K/UHD. So the question is: do they still accept new content that is shot at lower resolutions?!

And what will happen when they suddenly offer 8K?

 

So the better question is: who will be your clients? Someone who is interested in „artistic quality“ or someone who is only interested in technology/pixels?

[Bryan Fowler]

Good points. 

I don't think the idea is that Max, or others that have Access to an Amira (or Mini or Classic Alexa.. all same sensor) will never shoot on a newer camera, but to question if footage shot on a sub-UHD sensor can compete right now. I think the answer is yes, but of course it will depend on not only who's hiring you, but your work. I've worked with Agencies that don't care what we shoot on if we meet the budget, and others that want all the "Ks".

Also, RE; Netflix and streamers. Is it still the case that Netflix will accept things shot 1080, but it can't be "Netflix Original" unless it's on an approved sensor? 

[Max Field]

50 minutes ago, Bryan Fowler said:

Also, RE; Netflix and streamers. Is it still the case that Netflix will accept things shot 1080, but it can't be "Netflix Original" unless it's on an approved sensor? 

The approved sensor thing is corporate lobbying and nonsense. In my meeting at Netflix the visual footage quality was the last thing on anyone's minds. I was pitching for an animated series but I think the point still stands... If they don't care enough to just upscale the footage with AI (as I was told they were doing with other series), then they will do that with literally anything if the IP is hot enough. Celebrity trumps all.

[Jon O'Brien]

With digital I was doing music videos and performance videos for classical musicians. No narrative (well, except at SAE).

But no one ever cared for anything delivered beyond MP4 quality (1080P HD). It's so much quicker and easier to deliver this level of video. I always filmed on 4K though, just in case. People tended to want 4K until I explained the situation to them and then they just said nah just deliver in 1080P. It adds to the time and fuss if you work in 4K.

In my opinion the look of video does greatly differ between camera brands.

Canon C300MkIII 4K footage for instance to has a nice, ever so slightly softer look that is a tiny bit filmlike in my opinion. Arri footage as everyone knows looks great on the big screen, as digital footage goes that is. 

But I've seen 4K footage from other, lower-priced cameras that looks sharper but also (to my taste) have a sort of nasty cheap look. So despite the numbers and the technology some camera systems might not actually look strictly a '4K' look. The information no doubt is recorded on the CF Express card but the quality of the image does differ between brands of course.

[Tyler Purcell]

There is no doubt in my mind that 1080p with high bit rate and a good codec like Pro Res 4444 can be very nice. However, it's absolutely no contest against a 4k finish from a high resolution raw codec camera. 

When you dumb everything down to a compressed, low bandwidth codec, no wonder nobody has seen what 4k could look like. Heck, the older Alexa's aren't even close to 4k anyway once you start cropping them for standard 1.75:1/1.85:1 aspect ratios for any actual release. Now add some stabilization (cropping further) or re-framing, you're lucky to get 2k out of it. 

Everyone encodes and watches substandard codecs like .h264/.h265 8 bit 4:2:0. You get bit depth stepping issues, you get chroma sampling issues/aliasing between red and blue channels and you get swirling/bit rate issues due to the MPEG encode which makes everything soft anyway. 

When you work with high resolution raw media, in a 16 bit workflow, with 4k HDR grading monitor, it's really hard to see the same thing in 1080p, it just looks wrong. The grain no longer pops. The banding/aliasing between colors is infuriating to watch. The whole image starts to fall apart, especially when watching on a large monitor and it just looks more digital than it should. Watch the same file in 4k, even 8 bit 4:2:0 and it looks way better because you have more pixels to fill in, which means the bit depth and stepping issues/aliasing issues are less noticeable. Now show the same thing in 10 bit 4:2:2, like UHD BluRay and it's a night and day difference, it really is. 

I find that most people, even some professional camera people, don't seem to understand this stuff. It's infuriating to discuss cameras and technology with them pre-shoot and when the footage comes in, it's all baked in highly compressed log files, many times in 4k or "sub" 4k like the older Alexa's. They blame me when the image literally falls apart because the client wanted to make some adjustments to the final color.

The ALEV 3 cameras do fall apart pretty heavily if you aren't lighting perfectly, they actually have a very limited range for Pro Res shooting in Arri Log (better in raw). When it comes down to it, they have good highlight retention, but mimic the rolloff of film, only not as graceful. At least with film, you've got some grain to deal with, but how the ALEV 3 imagers fall apart in the blacks is very digital and wrong. I have been dealing with them for years, it's one of the dozens of reasons I tell people to forget the older Alexa's, Where not BLOWN AWAY by the ALEV 4, I have been impressed by Arri's new offerings, they're just not "all that" compared to the Venice 2 or even URSA Cine 12k. Even Red's offerings in HDR mode (which is a tricky technical frame blending mode) are far better in the toe than ALEV 3 imagers. 

Anyway, I think it all comes from a good source, good modern monitoring system and of course a computer that can manage it all. If you can't check all the boxes, then shit man might as well finish in 1080p and call it a day. However, OTHER people do have those things. Heck my MacBook I'm typing this on has an HDR monitor and links seamlessly with Youtube 4k HDR content, displaying IN 4k HDR on the screen. I can tell immediately who cared about their project and who didn't. It really sucks to see nice videos, horribly mastered and uploaded just because they didn't care to do it right. I get client stuff, sometimes they don't care, but I'm not sending future employers those links. I send them my 4k links, because I do the finishing and you bet your ass, they're in as high quality as I can make them. 

 

 

 

 

[Matt Irwin CSC]

@Max Field I'm a month late to this, but here's my take as a former Amira owner and someone who shoots both network originals and independent projects...

I agree with a lot of your sentiments. The Amira is, to me, still the best handheld camera ever made. The mass is in the right place, the balance is perfect and very tunable, and all of the controls / buttons / switches are right where you want them to be. With a prime it's downright fun. I shot 4 features and tons of shorts and documentaries with it, and never found myself fighting the camera either physically or in the image. 3.8K UHD was more than fine for everything I did, including VFX work. It's the sensor, Log-C and it's color fidelity, the look that matters most. As mentioned above, Skyfall, early Marvel films, and so many more were shot with that sensor and a lessor "brain" in the Classic, and in 2k (albeit ArriRAW), and the results are stunning and surprisingly analog feeling. 

 

The technical limitations that may come up depending on your situation might be:

-Anamorphic-- the 16:9 sensor really only allows for 1.3x, even if the newer firmware does 2x you're giving up field of view and resolution.

-Weight and size-- sometimes it can be too big and heavy for tight quarters or specific rig shots. In those moments I have dayplayed or carried a mini, or other small camera.

-Power-- it is a hungry beast. Especially compared to some more modern offerings, it can be a pain with air travel or if you work solo a lot. 

-No ArriRaw, at least stock. This is now available via paid firmware upgrade, though not when I owned one.

-Slow media. By today's standards, CFast cards take a very long time to download and checksum.

-Limited lens mount options, by today's standards. There are options, however they are expensive and not quickly changeable.

 

The whole network approval DCI 4k thing really only applies to "originals" and states that a high percentage of origination / the primary camera must be on an approved camera or at minimum 4096, language varies by network. If you are primarily making independent projects that may be sold to a studio or network, that won't apply. Mudbound for example was shot on a Mini in sub 4k (3.2k i think) and was purchased by netflix and released as an original. So go figure. We can all go on measurebating about pixels, and should absolutely strive for perfection and precision in our image making from capture to delivery, but the reality is that most of the audience will end up viewing the material on their phones on a subway, ipads on a plane, and uncalibrated home TVs with motion interpolation... NOT in a theatre with a calibrated projector or on an enormous HDR OLED (yet, at least). For those viewers, 4096 vs 3.8 vs 3.2 vs 2.8 is pretty moot. But your lighting, your color, and your camerawork will never be moot (even at 120hz ;-).

If you will be delivering at DCI 4k (or UHD), the trick with the Amira is to shoot in 3.8k, not 3.2k sensor native. The 3.2->3.8 upres happens internally pre-compression which will result in a cleaner final image. 3.8->4096 is a smaller bump up than 3.2->4096 for delivery. If you require ArriRaw, that is now available as a paid firmware upgrade. The difference can be significant.

It really comes down to what kind of work you want to do with an owned camera, and what you require technically and aesthetically (compressed recording vs raw, S35 world, anamorphic lenses, want the full frame look, etc). I sold mine because I was using it less and shooting bigger projects with other requirements and renting, and the resale was dropping. But if the above doesn't deter you they are so worth it for under $10k.  I honestly miss that old tank. 

 

 

[Max Field]

On 9/22/2025 at 12:35 PM, Matt Irwin CSC said:

-Power-- it is a hungry beast. Especially compared to some more modern offerings, it can be a pain with air travel or if you work solo a lot. 

This is hands down the biggest weakness of the camera. Thankfully there is someone out there every day trying to invent a more efficient rechargeable battery than lithium-ion.

[Tyler Purcell]

3 hours ago, Max Field said:

This is hands down the biggest weakness of the camera. Thankfully there is someone out there every day trying to invent a more efficient rechargeable battery than lithium-ion.

The fact the blacks look like manure would be my #1 complaint. They're horrible. The OG, Mini and Amira, all the same issue. Even when shooting raw, they're god awful. The Arri shines in the mid tones and highlights, but the blacks are its Achilles heal. I recently did 3 Mini shows back to back (edit/grade) and the director of all 3 said the same thing I did, she'll never shoot with one again. Amira is the same imager. 

But yes, all the good cinema cameras use power because there is a lot of imager processing going on.