I think this man likes the Alexa...

[Keith Walters]

Arri’s Alexa makes its U.S. feature debut on Prom, shot by Byron Shah

 

Very interesting read! (Apologies if this has been posted elsewhere, but it just appeared on Arri's Facebook Page).

 

There was a very hot and bothered thread yesterday on Reduser (now closed) about Alexa vs Epic, where Jim Jannard may have set a personal posts-per-hour record, and large numbers of heat-of-the-moment posts appear to have now been deleted, making the thread almost unreadable today! I just wonder if this might be what set them off. :rolleyes:

 

From the article, the bottom line seems to be that the Alexa just produces better results, uncoached viewers preferring the Alexa Film out over the other two.

[Brian Drysdale]

That thread seems to come down to the 4k v 1080p debate. Future proofing for a possible 4k TV system would be only one of the considerations for a producer, usually the more pressing ones are getting the production made on time and on budget. The storage costs of even more data than a production currently requires to be sold to HDTV could be seen as a financial liability for TV production companies.

[Keith Walters]

Oh dear, another Elephant has just entered the room. :rolleyes:

 

Captain America the First Avenger was captured in glorious 1920 x 800 with the admittedly now somewhat long-in-the-tooth PV Genesis But:

 

Joe Johnston:

We shot the very last scene – the epilogue in NYC – with the Arri Alexa, and I prefer it. It was easier to use, and the image quality was better. If we shoot digital again, we’ll use it.

 

He did mention that the main reason for his choice was the availability of Panavision lenses with the Genesis, but you can also get a certain well-known but mysteriously not mentioned alternative brand of camera PV mounts from them as well. OK, maybe they just didn't have any available at the moment, but you'd think he would have mentioned that.

 

Strange days indeed...

 

 

Joe Johnston on Captain America the First Avenger

[K Borowski]

Keith, do you have anything useful to report, anything POSITIVE?

 

All you seem to do is bash the Red. I can understand your dislike of digital imaging being PUSHED on every facet of this industry. What are you doing, personally, about it? Do you think these silly posts though, taking personal jabs at industry players, is going to somehow save film or hurt the Red company?

 

You're just wasting bandwidth and our time. Do something about it if you want to fight imaging that is marginal in quality. Go out there and become an advocate, industry rep., famous DP, lab owner, film engineer, camera manufacturer and do something positive, instead of bashing a system that is replacing a system that is currently better than it thanks, in GREAT PART due to all of the "armchair experts" on here and 100-foot a year 16mm enthusiasts.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Karl, you are one to talk. You are the most cynical and grouchy person I have ever had the pleasure not to meet. I recall a certain thread about the making of a new Super 8 camera where you became the butt of everyones joke as the "know-it-all film loader." What are you doing for the industry, Karl?

[K Borowski]

At least I don't sit in an armchair staring at a computer screen all day.

 

That Super 8 camera was the joke, not me.

 

 

You guys need to pull your heads out of your asses! Film is dying right now, and you are doing NOTHING about it but bashing the competition when you come up for air from sticking your heads in the sand!

 

You do not wish to associate with me, more power to you, because I am on your side. I'm brutally honest, and don't entertain other people's grandiose fantasies, or help with mentally getting them off on something that will never happen (mental masterbation, like the other kind, ought to be a one person activity) but I am on your side.

 

And, do you know WHY I am cynical? I work in the industry, hear all this SH__ on here, all the big talk, big ideas, then SEE the total lack of followthrough, friends out of the job, f'in fired, dead, took their own lives, because you guys don't send sh__ into the G"Ded lab, all you do is wear a hole in your armchair you're typing so fast.

 

I'm sick of it. Your IT job that kills my industry by day is NOT offset by your shooting 3 rolls of Super 8 every year. You're KILLING us and I HATE YOU for it. You're deluding students to boot and I resent anyone that corrupts young bright minds with flights of fancy and delusion.

[Keith Walters]

Keith, do you have anything useful to report, anything POSITIVE?

 

All you seem to do is bash the Red.

 

Hmmm. I've been regularly posting on Reduser for some time now and I don't seem to have gotten banned yet. I even get civil replies from Jim Jannard from time to time.

 

"You're just wasting bandwidth and our time"

 

I think others may disagree. I've written quite a few lengthy posts here and elsewhere that explain in a completely non-judgemental manner some of the pecularities of the RED system and how to work around them.

 

On the other hand, all you ever seem to do is rattle on like an old barfly. Get over it.

 

For what it's worth, I think the Red cameras could have been a lot better than they are, and nobody who takes on the Fraunhofer Institute is likely to come out in one piece. We're talking Kokura Arsenal vs The Manhattan Project here. Jimmy J's garage band vs the Jimi Hendrix Experience. MacDonalds vx Maxim's etc etc.

[K Borowski]

Sorry, alcohol has nothing to do with my criticism of your attitudes. A little early here for it, anyway! Not high noon yet, but I am shaking with anticipation when I can crack open my first can in the daily 24-pack. Sure beats drinking listerine, Sterno.

 

 

You want to write an informative, thought out comparison of different cameras, formats, publish a PAPER, I am all for it.

 

But this thread you are launching personal attacks, taking pleasure in another's bad fortunes (probably temporary until they come out with a contender).

 

 

You've come to the opinion I have a particular liking for this camera, I don't. I liked the movie "Knowing" and the way it was photographed, looked, and you POUNCED on me for it. Look at my thread on ACVL and you'll see where I stand. Those photos of folks gathered around the Alexa? I had a similar expression on my face. I admit my conflict of interest, but get away with it, I think, because I have specific legitimate gripes.

 

All I see is you reveling in these flaws.

 

 

So what is the point of this thread other than to bash? This is as senseless, tasteless as someone driving around Rochester with an Arri Alexa and shooting themselves dancing on George Eastman's grave, heckling out of work former employees, doing wheelies in the Kodak parking lots (that are so empty the minor league baseball team uses them now), and gleefully interviewing people about the digital revolution and how it has revolutionized their lives.

 

It is natural to take pleasure in a rival's pain. I'm guilty of it myself on occasion, but you take it to an extreme sir and that is what I object to here. I just got criticized for being so negative, I'm not. I am hopelessly, romantically positive about film! The only thing I'm negative about is camera stock, and that has its advantages in my line of work ;-) Negativity is depressing, contagious, and ultimately counterproductive. Instead of a negative thread about Red, howabout a positive thread about the Alexa? That's all I'm saying.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Look Karl, I used to have the same feelings as you about the people that shot digital. Then I started talking to some of them. Most are not these evil people who cant wait for film to die. A lot of them have never shot with it and even considered shooting on it but have been put off by film snobs that present a type of barrier to entry with ridiculous advice about purchasing $10k+ camera packages and then purchasing stock, process, and telecine afterward. If the film community would have fostered more of a realistic attitude and mentoring spirit, this problem wouldnt have happened. I just happened to be a person who was fortunate enough to find some nice and realistic people to teach me rather than buttheads.

 

And for the record, I think a low cost brand new and user friendly Super 8 camera would go a lot further in helping the cause of film for newbies than a $10,000 Aaton S16 package. Most digital shooters secretly like the look of film but either finances or lack of knowledge of how to shoot it are the barriers.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

And I also wanted to add that film is not dying because of those that shoot tons of it. It is dying because it doesnt have the support of the little guy anymore. Could you imagine, Karl, if every indie who shot on a 5d, t2i, or any of those DSLRs were instead shooting even a 100' of 16mm? Or 200' of S8 for every project they did? Lets just say I would love to buy stock in Kodak at that point.

[Phil Rhodes]

I'm not so sure.

 

Film is dying out, at least as far as labs go, because they aren't doing dozens or hundreds of release prints. This was always worth hundreds of times more processing work than camera originals. I can't see film origination surviving either, since it's so expensive anyway - and by the time the cost of processing goes up to cover the sharp reduction in trade represented by the end of film exhibition, it'll be even worse.

 

Celluloid has had a good run, better than most technologies, and its end has been much postponed by an industry that's uncharacteristically concerned over technical quality. There is now nothing wrong with the alternatives which are or will very soon be much cheaper. Such is the price of progress.

 

P

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Phil, while we are being honest, let's not forget that Kodak has did very little to stop film's demise. Most other businesses would try lauching some kind of promotion...say a beginners pack which includes a basic camera, 4 rolls of S8, and a voucher for free processing and telecine for the price of a Canon t2i kit. This would have went over big in the newbies indie community. Hell, why not have tried a Kodak store in all the big cities? That could handle sells, processing, and telecine of film footage along with prosumer level cameras for sell. Sounds silly right? That's what everyone thought about the Apple store when they decided to launch, yours truly included. Suffice to say if I had invested my $20k that I had at the time into Apple stock, I would be funding my own feature films right now. ;)

[K Borowski]

Kodak USED TO HAVE stores in all the big cities. They were closed down.

 

Kodak exited the lab business with the closing of Qualex. They probably exited the lab business seventy years ago for movies, when they lost a suit involving selling process-included Kodahcrome in the US.

 

 

There are no new S8 cameras, therefore Kodak can't sell them. They only sell NEW products.

 

 

 

Computers are used by everyone in the U.S. who isn't Amish, 80 years old. S8 cameras are not.

 

 

I agree with you that Kodak is letting film die. They have extended up to 35mm, which I find really bothersome because they used to spoil 35mm filmmakers. Kodak offering really; exceptional 8mm products is only going to hurt their own sales. S8 is great to learn on, but ulitamately generates Kodak 1/4 the revenue, or a little more sinc ethey mark it up. Why do you think 7201 isn't available in S8 (with the exceptions of those Pro8mm Con Artists).

 

 

Not trying to be a buzz kill, but they don't have the money. Their money is in 35mm. For the longest time, Kodak wanted everyone to shoot 70mm film, 4-perf. scope. They've only finally gotten with the program and even started MENTIONING 2 perf. They'vew finally got with it, in mayny ways a win-win for them if people can shoot 2-perf. as cheaply as 126mm, except for maybe the labs, the viability of formats other than 35mm.(pretty sure they cut S8 and 16 from the same slits, so 16mm losses affect S8, just as much, if not moreso).

 

S8 is a loss leader and charity. It gets flim students into bigger, better formats.

 

 

 

Phil: Agree with pretty much everything you say, except for 35mm oriignation. With 3D dying faster than 35mm release printing, a lot of the "progress" made has been lost. The Arri Alexa will take a chunk out of the film pie, but there are still TELEVISION STATIONS that mandate 35mm negative.

 

I'm not the only stubborn purist that is going to die really Fing hard.

 

 

Matthew, I don't know what point you're trying to make. This thread is about bashing Red, which is just as childish as bashing film. I was not in any way belittling film, just I generally find distasteful giving the other side the same crummy treatment as our camp gets.

 

 

Where do you gather I DON'T think the other side is generally full of really nice people? You called me out for attacking someone's treating them as otherwise.

 

 

 

My chief sticking point throughout this whole silly battle is thta digital wants the WHOLE PIE, always hve. They want every industry, every job to be insepatrably linked to their products. I will fight this foolish, arrogant attitude.

 

Phil, you;re right that color film may only have 5-10 years left, but I bet you will still be able to walk into a store (may be behind the counter) and buy a roll of B&W film,e ven movie film 100 years hence.

 

 

 

 

It is simple math that there are what 16 frames of S8 per 4-perf. 35m frame? They'd have to sell 16x as much

[K Borowski]

EDIT:

 

Kodak USED TO HAVE stores in all the big cities. They were closed down.

 

Kodak exited the lab business with the closing of Qualex. They probably exited the lab business seventy years ago for movies, when they lost a suit involving selling process-included Kodahcrome in the US.

 

 

There are no new S8 cameras, therefore Kodak can't sell them. They only sell NEW products.

 

 

 

Computers are used by everyone in the U.S. who isn't Amish, 80 years old. S8 cameras are not.

 

 

I agree with you that Kodak is letting film die. They have extended up to 35mm, which I find really bothersome because they used to spoil 35mm filmmakers. Kodak offering really; exceptional 8mm products is only going to hurt their own sales. S8 is great to learn on, but ulitamately generates Kodak 1/4 the revenue, or a little more sinc ethey mark it up. Why do you think 7201 isn't available in S8 (with the exceptions of those Pro8mm Con Artists). It is simple math that there are what 16 frames of S8 per 4-perf. 35m frame? They'd have to sell 16x as much.

 

 

Not trying to be a buzz kill, but they don't have the money. Their money is in 35mm. For the longest time, Kodak wanted everyone to shoot 70mm film, 4-perf. scope. They've only finally gotten with the program and even started MENTIONING 2 perf. They've finally got it that, in many ways it's a win-win for them if people can shoot 2-perf. as cheaply as 16mm, except for maybe the labs, and for the viability of formats other than 35mm(pretty sure they cut S8 and 16 from the same slits, so 16mm losses affect S8, just as much, if not moreso).

 

S8 is a loss leader and charity. It gets flim students into bigger, better formats.

 

 

 

Phil: Agree with pretty much everything you say, except on the demise of 35mm orignation. With 3D dying faster than 35mm release printing, a lot of the "progress" made has been lost. The Arri Alexa will take a chunk out of the film pie, but there are still TELEVISION STATIONS that mandate 35mm negative. MTV still shoots spots on 35mm in NYC, whereas AMC the theatre chain does not. GO FIGURE there.

 

Anyway I'm not the only stubborn purist that is going to die really Fing hard, so there will be plenty of 35mm holdouts.

 

 

Matthew, I don't know what point you're trying to make. This thread is about bashing Red, which is just as childish as bashing film. I was not in any way belittling film, just I generally find distasteful giving the other side the same crummy treatment as our camp gets.

 

 

Where do you gather I DON'T think the other side is generally full of really nice people? You called me out for attacking someone's treating them as otherwise.

 

 

 

My chief sticking point throughout this whole silly battle is thta digital wants the WHOLE PIE, always have. They want every industry, every job to be insepatrably linked to their products. I will fight this foolish, arrogant attitude.

 

Phil, you're right that color film may only have 5-10 years left, but I bet you will still be able to walk into a store (may be behind the counter) and buy a roll of B&W film,e ven movie film 100 years hence.

 

 

 

Far more interesting than Tom's bet about 35mm origination for features, albeit far harder to collect upon the outcome! I think the only way color will survive is in some sort of far lower-tech technicolor type process, which would have to be resurrected at this point.

[Dom Jaeger]

Look Karl, I used to have the same feelings as you about the people that shot digital. Then I started talking to some of them. Most are not these evil people who cant wait for film to die. A lot of them have never shot with it and even considered shooting on it but have been put off by film snobs that present a type of barrier to entry with ridiculous advice about purchasing $10k+ camera packages and then purchasing stock, process, and telecine afterward. If the film community would have fostered more of a realistic attitude and mentoring spirit, this problem wouldnt have happened. I just happened to be a person who was fortunate enough to find some nice and realistic people to teach me rather than buttheads.

 

And for the record, I think a low cost brand new and user friendly Super 8 camera would go a lot further in helping the cause of film for newbies than a $10,000 Aaton S16 package. Most digital shooters secretly like the look of film but either finances or lack of knowledge of how to shoot it are the barriers.

 

Hi Matthew,

 

I can only assume I'm one of the the 'film snob buttheads' you're referring to. Didn't you just express in another thread the desire not to see people abused on these forums?

 

For the record, I thought a Bolex kit for under a grand was a good start for film newbies. I mentioned that given the plummeting prices for industry standard sound cameras, for sync sound it might be worth considering investing in one of those (these days starting at maybe 6 grand or less), rather than buying a camera for 1 or 2 that can be harder to find parts and service for. I never said it was the only option, and of course it's dependent on a person's budget, location and intent.

 

I'm just one voice among many sharing their viewpoint. Because I'm a repairman my perspective comes from the service aspect. I'm more than happy to stand corrected, that's really why I post here - I'm more interested in learning than lecturing. So if you disagree with me, argue the point. Maybe someone in the States has a store full of Eclair parts, maybe there are plenty of CP-16 service guys out there, maybe it doesn't really matter. Calling me a butthead in a different thread does nothing to advance your argument, it just makes you sound like an angry crank.

 

Sorry to further the highjack of this thread, but I find it galling to be abused and accused of helping along the demise of film when I've devoted my career to supporting it.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Wow, Dom, I think you are talking a bit paranoid. I realize that in another thread we had talked about this point but I really wasnt talking about you when I said that. And since I didnt mention you by name, how can that be abuse? If you infer something, that is your problem and not my doing.

[Dom Jaeger]

OK Matthew, if you say so.

 

I'd rather be paranoid with a problem than a butthead, I guess. B)

[Keith Walters]

Gentleman, please!

 

Try as I might, I'm unable to find where I mentioned film in this discussion.

Feel free to discuss this by all means, but surely not in the Arri HD folder.

And as for "Red Bashing" that is rapidly gaining the status of "Red is a scam", that is, an expression that is widely used, but only by people erroneously claiming we said it, and posts by people denying they ever said it.

 

Where is the Red Bashing?

The simple fact is, if you read what they say on Reduser, the Epic has the game sewn up with suppposedly better-than-film performance.

Yet, there are numerous examples of people who don't seem to agree, and choose to use what are supposedly inferior cameras. Why am I not allowed to point that out? And why do I have to come across as a stuffed shirt?

 

Regarding film projection, while I agree its days are numbered, I think that number is somewhat bigger than most of you appear to believe.

 

First of all, the vast majority of release prints are made for developing countries, where universal digital projection is a long way off, and will remain so until much cheaper projectors become available.

And while flm prints remain affordable, there is a large segment of the First World exhibition industry that are perfectly happy with those, and they're not in any hurry to upgrade. The distributors also know well that if they stopped supplying prints, they would not have the same customers buying digital versions, most likely they would simply not have those customers at all, because they would be out of business!

 

If you already have the chemical infrastructure to make release prints, it's certainly worthwhile to do camera negative as well, and most places can also include scanning and storage of your original negative.

 

However, once film projection goes, it's definitely going to be harder to get quality processing done. I know a couple of guys who are experimenting with converting consumer minilabs for movie negative processing. You can get them for next to nothing these days, and most of them have high-quality long-life mechanisms, so there is still hope.

[Phil Rhodes]

Perhaps I'm being oversensitive but every time I read posts on this forum decrying "video people" I get a bit defensive.

 

The main reason I never used to shoot that much film was that it was so incredibly expensive. The only other issue was that I quite commonly got results I wasn't happy with, which couldn't be detected on the day; you can get better results out of a 5D than you can easily get out of 16, at least in the circumstances I used to shoot it, with no money, no camera tests, etc. Film is frankly unreliable, again, at least for the sort of stuff I end up doing.

 

But the main reason was cost. After all, if it was cheaper, you could shoot more tests...

 

P

[James Brown]

This whole topic belongs somewhere else. Karl, get your hand off it and chill out.

[Phil Rhodes]

Regarding film projection, while I agree its days are numbered, I think that number is somewhat bigger than most of you appear to believe

I tend to agree. Regardless of the amount of photochemical production that goes on, which I suspect will be around for a while yet, there's the best part of a century's worth of back catalogue that needs to be accessible - especially as we know that digital projection can make film look very good, certainly better than some well-worn old print. For this reason alone, there will be a need for people who can handle film without wrecking it for probably decades at least. At some point it will presumably get down to the point that super-8 is at now, and eventually it'll go. Shame. But as I say, it's had a very decent run, it's still mainstream, and it is so respected as a technology that it's only being replaced now the replacements are really very good. It could be far worse.

P

[Francesco Bonomo]

I'm not so sure.

 

Film is dying out, at least as far as labs go, because they aren't doing dozens or hundreds of release prints. This was always worth hundreds of times more processing work than camera originals. I can't see film origination surviving either, since it's so expensive anyway - and by the time the cost of processing goes up to cover the sharp reduction in trade represented by the end of film exhibition, it'll be even worse.

 

Celluloid has had a good run, better than most technologies, and its end has been much postponed by an industry that's uncharacteristically concerned over technical quality. There is now nothing wrong with the alternatives which are or will very soon be much cheaper. Such is the price of progress.

 

P

 

This is pretty much what I've heard many, many times when talking to Cinematographers and even some people who deal more with the distribution side of things. Kodak gets the biggest chunk of money from other sources, but it is indeed true that once film projection disappears, their profit margin will be reduced to a minimum (that is, if there will be any profit at all). I've read some news yesterday about Norway being the first all-digital country as far as projection goes, with its 400 screens all already converted to 2K (and some 4K) projection. Here in Italy it's different: it's true a lot of theaters have installed digital systems, mostly because they want to be able to project 3D movies, but at the same time a lot of owners don't want to upgrade because from their point of view the cost is just too high, especially when the economy crisis is still very much alive. IF the economy gets better and 3D becomes a "safe" bet, perhaps more cinemas here will upgrade, but right now it's still very much film-based (and most television series are still shot on S16mm).

Then, if 10 years from now, film goes away, let's just hope that whatever replaces it is just as good, and by that I mean not just resolution or latitude, but also "feel", workflow, and reliability. And let's hope that for those who are not crazy about what digital imaging brings to the table, motion picture film remains at least a choice for a long time to come. If not, well, personally I'll be quite sad, but I guess I'll adapt.

[Shelly Johnson ASC]

Oh dear, another Elephant has just entered the room. :rolleyes:

 

Captain America the First Avenger was captured in glorious 1920 x 800 with the admittedly now somewhat long-in-the-tooth PV Genesis But:

 

Joe Johnston:

We shot the very last scene – the epilogue in NYC – with the Arri Alexa, and I prefer it. It was easier to use, and the image quality was better. If we shoot digital again, we’ll use it.

 

He did mention that the main reason for his choice was the availability of Panavision lenses with the Genesis, but you can also get a certain well-known but mysteriously not mentioned alternative brand of camera PV mounts from them as well. OK, maybe they just didn't have any available at the moment, but you'd think he would have mentioned that.

 

Strange days indeed...

 

 

Joe Johnston on Captain America the First Avenger

 

Hi Keith,

 

I believe that was only a partial quote from Joe. Indeed we did use the ARRI Alexa for the New York (modern day) sequence on Captain America. We also used it for the underwater shots during the Kruger Chase.

 

The decision to use the Genesis as our principle camera stemmed from production requirements... and it's general massive scale. We shot 2 continuous units for months and had the need to carry up to 8 camera bodies at any given time. The availability of Alexa bodies was limited since we began shooting in June, 2010... shortly after the Alexa's initial release. There simply were not enough bodies around to make the Alexa a viable choice. In addition, I needed the support of a large rental house on that project. Even if we were able to scrounge around Europe and find the bodies, we would not have been able to secure the gear from a single source... thus compromising support... which is a major component on a picture of this size.

 

I was comfortable with the choice of using the Genesis (knowing full well it may be my last time out with that camera because of the plethora of new gear out there). I'm particularly fond of the support that Panavision offers and the design and use of their SSR's. Since the Alexa's were so new at the time, there were no reasonable options for uncompressed solid state on-board recording... and ARRI-Raw did not exist at that time either.

 

Panavisions SSR's and their DTS Transfer station, plus the ability to create DPX Files on set were quite attractive to a number of different departments such as editorial and VFX.

 

Joe's request of me was to shoot with a digital capture. He left the choice of camera completely to me and I chose the Genesis for the above reasons. It's true that Joe and I are accustomed to using Panavision lenses... and the Alexas we used in NYC had Panavision mounts and carried Panavision accessories. Those NYC scenes were shot in late April, 2011... so the availability of the updated gear on that small scale was no problem.

 

We did enjoy the added low-end latitude the Alexa has, plus the speed and size. We certainly will give a Panavised version of that camera a good look before making a final choice on future projects. I used it on SMASH and loved it.

 

Thanks for reading!

 

Shelly Johnson, ASC

[Keith Walters]

 

We did enjoy the added low-end latitude the Alexa has, plus the speed and size. We certainly will give a Panavised version of that camera a good look before making a final choice on future projects. I used it on SMASH and loved it.

 

Thanks for reading!

 

Shelly Johnson, ASC

Sorry, I didn't notice your reply until just now.

It's actually very rare to have someone of your calibre/status whatever posting on forums like this.

There's an awful lot of heated discussion sometimes, which could have been laid to rest with a few words "from the horse's mouth" so to speak, but I can well understand people's reluctance to get involved.

In my own case, my apparently flippant attitude has a large "I told you so!" component.

The reference to "Glorious 1920 x 800" is a response to Jim Jannard's recent near-apoplexy on this subject in the Reduser forum :rolleyes:

[Phil Rhodes]

Simple technical query.

 

Did you hit any rolling-shutter issues with Alexa? It is, to a very small extent, rolling shutter, and I'm not sure if you'd have been using strobes or lightning strikes or anything of that sort, on a film of that nature.

 

P