Film Vs Digital - Why Is Arri Alexa So Expensive

[Michael Landon]

Sorry for your loss. There is a third option: standalone anamorphic elements of a lesser power, such as this. But, again, you would have to finish at a higher resolution. Best of luck!

 

Thank you all. I just spoke to the sales rep and he said he would be able to do an equal trade to the 4:3 for me. He said he had no idea I intended to do anamorphic. He said something about anamorphic on 4:3 sensor having a more horizontal resolution in the final desqueezed image.

 

Michael

Edited June 2, 2014 by Michael Landon

[David Mullen ASC]

What does the 4:3 sensor do for anamorphic? Heard it has to do with resolution or something

 

Didn't I already answer that?

 

If the end goal is a 2.40 : 1 aspect ratio and you use an anamorphic lens with a standard 2X horizontal compression, then you will only be using a 1.20 : 1 area of the recording before it gets stretched back out to 2.40 : 1 in post. This is basic math.

 

A 4x3 sensor is the same thing as saying a 1.33 : 1 sensor, it's just a different way of expressing the same ratio of height to width only instead of using whole numbers (4 by 3) you are expressing the ratio with the vertical always being a unit value of "1", as in "1.33 by 1". Just divide 4 by 3 and you get 1.33, just as when you divide 16 by 9, you get 1.7777777.... Film aspect ratios are usually listed with the vertical being a value of 1 relative to the horizontal value (as in "1.33 : 1, 1.85 : 1, 2.40 : 1") whereas traditionally video has used whole numbers to express the ratio.

 

So if your sensor is 16x9 or some other widescreen shape and your recording is also 16x9, then once you shoot with a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd have to crop the horizontal dimensions otherwise the final aspect ratio is too widescreen (16x9 is 1.78 : 1, so with a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd get a 3.56 : 1 image once unsqueezed.)

 

So it helps to either use a sensor that is more square-shaped as with the 4x3 Alexa, or use a camera that records so much resolution (like a 6K Dragon Epic) that having to crop the sides to only end up using a 1.20 : 1 area of the sensor to get a 2.40 : 1 image still means you'd have a decent resolution. I think a 4x3 Arriraw recording is something like 2.88K across whereas cropping a 6K Epic sensor to use only a 1.20 : 1 gets you something like 3.6K across. The difference then mainly becomes field of view, you lose more of it if you have to crop more, which mainly means you have to compensate by using shorter focal lengths.

 

Since most 2X anamorphic lenses where designed for the area of 4-perf 35mm movie film, the 4x3 Alexa sensor is similar to that area so a 40mm anamorphic lens, for example, gives you a similar view on a 35mm movie camera as it does on a 4x3 Alexa.

[Michael Landon]

 

Didn't I already answer that?

 

If the end goal is a 2.40 : 1 aspect ratio and you use an anamorphic lens with a standard 2X horizontal compression, then you will only be using a 1.20 : 1 area of the recording before it gets stretched back out to 2.40 : 1 in post. This is basic math.

 

A 4x3 sensor is the same thing as saying a 1.33 : 1 sensor, it's just a different way of expressing the same ratio of height to width only instead of using whole numbers (4 by 3) you are expressing the ratio with the vertical always being a unit value of "1", as in "1.33 by 1". Just divide 4 by 3 and you get 1.33, just as when you divide 16 by 9, you get 1.7777777.... Film aspect ratios are usually listed with the vertical being a value of 1 relative to the horizontal value (as in "1.33 : 1, 1.85 : 1, 2.40 : 1") whereas traditionally video has used whole numbers to express the ratio.

 

So if your sensor is 16x9 or some other widescreen shape and your recording is also 16x9, then once you shoot with a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd have to crop the horizontal dimensions otherwise the final aspect ratio is too widescreen (16x9 is 1.78 : 1, so with a 2X anamorphic lens, you'd get a 3.56 : 1 image once unsqueezed.)

 

So it helps to either use a sensor that is more square-shaped as with the 4x3 Alexa, or use a camera that records so much resolution (like a 6K Dragon Epic) that having to crop the sides to only end up using a 1.20 : 1 area of the sensor to get a 2.40 : 1 image still means you'd have a decent resolution. I think a 4x3 Arriraw recording is something like 2.88K across whereas cropping a 6K Epic sensor to use only a 1.20 : 1 gets you something like 3.6K across. The difference then mainly becomes field of view, you lose more of it if you have to crop more, which mainly means you have to compensate by using shorter focal lengths.

 

Since most 2X anamorphic lenses where designed for the area of 4-perf 35mm movie film, the 4x3 Alexa sensor is similar to that area so a 40mm anamorphic lens, for example, gives you a similar view on a 35mm movie camera as it does on a 4x3 Alexa.

 

Right - this is what I meant. If one just uses a spherical lens on say a 16:9 sensor camera - using a more shorter focal length and cropping the top and the bottom - then would you not effectively have the same image as an anamorphic? Because the way I understand it from your point is "pretend it's a wide-angle adapter" which makes sense to me. I know you won't get the flares, etc - but I mean purely from a aesthetic standpoint - would it not be possible to just get a 16:9 video at say 25mm, film a bit further from your subjects, and crop the top and bottom - thereby making it appear to be the same as a 50mm anamorphic lens?

 

Just wondering, sir

[Chris Millar]

Michael,

 

Cancel your order

 

Spend a few weeks cooling off - get your head around it - then, make a purchase :)

 

(please)

Edited June 2, 2014 by Chris Millar

[Michael Landon]

Michael,

 

Cancel your order

 

Spend a few weeks cooling off - get your head around it - then, make a purchase :)

 

(please)

 

I don't think canceling my order will get my head around it any more or faster. I'll keep my order and just learn as all film-makers do. I'm going to be renting ana lenses soon.

[cole t parzenn]

Well, let me ask: why are you so set on getting an Alexa? It's a good camera (I hate 2K on the big screen but damn, Hoyte made it look good on "Her") but it won't necessarily serve you well. Arri themselves advocate film for most uses and even the industry standard Alexa will be obsolete, not so far from now. There are better ways for you to spend 80k.

[Michael Landon]

The reality is I don't think I'm that technically knowledgeable to do any project on ACTUAL film....not even sure how I would go about scanning that into a PC and editing it etc. As much as I love the authenticity of that process, it's not for me in the slightest. Computers I at least have somewhat of an idea about. Btw I am going to be getting the Arri Plus 4:3 now.

[cole t parzenn]

Buy a stills camera, **** up one 25 cent frame at a time until you get good. Problem solved. ;)

[Michael Landon]

Hahahahah. After 400 frames, i may actually get 16 seconds. now that's living!

[cole t parzenn]

80k buys more pizzas than professional movie cameras. ;) Cinematography technique is essentially the same in either medium; buy a super 16 or prosumer digital camera and save the bulk of that 80k for a future investment. There's a reason that - FIVE pages in - no one has recommended you buy the Alexa and most of us have advocated against it.

 

Film labs scan the film for you, btw.

[John E Clark]

Boy... if I had had this sort of windfall when I was young... I would have bought that Beaulieu with the electric motor option, and shot the hell out of Film film...

 

But alas...

 

I have no idea why 'anamorphic' is even in the discussion... lens choice is really a 'story choice', and for some directors, it seems to be an 'aesthetic' choice.

 

It would not be my choice ever... even if I had somehow got the buget to do the "Penultimate Remake of Beau Geste"... or some such 'epic' type film.

 

Things that happen with anamorphic... straight lines in the scene end up bowed, depending; focus fall off at the edges of the frame, thus requiring a smaller f-stop than the equivalent spherical lens, thus requiring more light (or higher ISO till noise intrudes...), or, alternatively, requiring the actors be very critically placed, and the follow focus precise.

 

Things which are obivous are the 'bloom' of the highlights... and I almost never look at 'bokeh' at all... unless I'm paying so much attention to the technique, that I miss the story completely.

 

These days... If I were to have such a windfall as to be able to afford buying an Alexa outright... I'd probably go with one of the under 10K Canons, look at the Black Magic offerings, and... drum roll... think about buying some fairly good production sound equipment, and lighting equipment, and a used van to carry all this stuff around...

 

But that's me...

Edited June 2, 2014 by jeclark2006

[cole t parzenn]

Hell, the GH4 is worth a good, close look. Who's seen "Upstream Color?" That was Rec. 709 from two upgrade cycles ago and it looked fantastic! (On the small screen, at least.)

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I agree with everyone else here. Alexa is a bad investment to make when starting out. Even people who use it seldom buy it. I think Richard Boddington is the only person I know who actually purchased one for production but he is experienced and loaded these days (money, not drugs lol)

 

Film is not even a difficult medium to shoot on. At the most basic level, you load your mag with film, take a meter reading of the light in the area, set exposure on camera, aim at object to film, hit run button, wait til no longer wish to film, hit stop button. Take film out of mag in darkness, send to lab, lab does everything else and you get nifty hard drive with digital files as though you shot digitally but they look SO much nicer because you shot film and had world class colorist handle your footage. I cant imagine why anyone who has done the process wouldnt want to anymore.

[Chris Millar]

The reality is I don't think I'm that technically knowledgeable to do any project on ACTUAL film....

 

It's not that hard :huh:

 

Especially once held up to the larger context of every other issue involved in making a film...

 

The benefit of shooting on film is that more often than not it ends up looking like it was shot on film - without any effort.

 

You're pretty much buying into the problem of 'making it look like film'.

 

 

Film, is ... it's just fun!

 

Amazing machines, completely out of reach not 5 years ago can be bought for much much less than what you're paying.

 

Ah well, I tried :)

[Pavan Deep]

There are many guides and online tutrials about working with film, it's not difficult at all. I feel many don't want to use film because it seems old fashioned and going backwards, but at the same time many are after that distinct 'film look'. If people are after the 'film look' they should try to use film, there are still many options for camera, stock, lab and telecine. I don't think people should be weary or even scared to use film, as mentioned here it is quite easy, fun and rewarding and doesn't have to be expensive. Even a 60 year old camera can be used with modern film to produce some stuning footage. It's not always about the tools, but the way people use them.

 

Pav

Edited June 2, 2014 by Pav Deep

[Brian Drysdale]

The reality is I don't think I'm that technically knowledgeable to do any project on ACTUAL film....not even sure how I would go about scanning that into a PC and editing it etc. As much as I love the authenticity of that process, it's not for me in the slightest. Computers I at least have somewhat of an idea about. Btw I am going to be getting the Arri Plus 4:3 now.

 

The camera you're buying involves acquiring a lot of technical knowledge. You're into learning about exposure and grading images shot on log if you're after a close to film look,

 

I hope you've also budgeted for suitable tripod and monitor.

[Ravi Kiran]

I think you're better off renting cameras like the Alexa, Red Epic, etc., rather than buying them. This way you aren't married to using your camera on every project because you own it. Plus, you can always rent the latest camera, rather than having to sell your camera every couple of years or use your camera that you've had a long time.

 

Purchasing an ENG camera might make sense, since those have more longevity than digital cinema cameras. And buying a camera like a C300 wouldn't set you back too much.

Edited June 2, 2014 by Ravi Kiran

[James Martin]

The ALEXA is expensive, like all cameras of that quality, not just because of the image but because of the build quality of the thing.

 

You could say the same about cars... go sit in a Ford, then sit in a Bentley or something. On the package they might seem to do the same thing (both have four wheels etc...), but they are made for entirely different crowds.

[Freya Black]

Well, let me ask: why are you so set on getting an Alexa? It's a good camera (I hate 2K on the big screen but damn, Hoyte made it look good on "Her") but it won't necessarily serve you well. Arri themselves advocate film for most uses and even the industry standard Alexa will be obsolete, not so far from now. There are better ways for you to spend 80k.

 

I just want to point out that virtually anything digital you see on a big screen IS 2K.

Almost all DCP's are 2K

 

Freya

[Mark Kenfield]

Well I'll give you this much Michael - you picked the right camera to learn on (albeit the most expensive). The Alexa is the simplest camera on the market to operate and control, so you won't have the menu-diving learning curve to get past that you would with other cameras.

[David Peterson]

Thank you all for explaining this to me. I feel I will go with the best of both worlds: the Arri Alexa and the DSLR (Rebel T3i I have).

 

Could anyone explain to me how expensive the SxS solution is? I'll be broke after that 80K-90k purchase.

 

Good grief, this quote makes it absolutely blindingly clear you should not buy any kind of Alexa! Or even any say a Sony F5 etc... for much much less than an Alex is. This thread ought to have consisted of nothing but that being repeated over and over: *don't waste your money*! Only if you're a multi millionaire playboy might it then *maybe* make sense to buy one in your situation (because meh.... you spent more on your latest Ferrari anyway! Or some such nonsense).

 

Keep on practising with your T3i instead and get more expensive. And if you *must* spend more money, spend it in other areas such as a set of Rokinon primes. Or lighting. Or... too many other way to list! Is easy to spend money... so don't waste it on an Alexa!

 

 

And if you *must* spend money on a camera body, get a Panasonic GH4 (or even a G6), or Sony A7s, or one of the Blackmagic Design cameras. Any of these would be a *hugely* better idea for you at this stage to get than an Alex. Stick the rest of the money way in an investment (such as an Index Fund) so it is available for when you will really need it in the future.

[Chris Millar]

We needed an audible scream function...

 

To late though, I think he pulled the trigger.

 

Retail therapy perhaps ;)

[David Hessel]

I am usually not someone to step in an question what someone wants to do with their own money, but from my very narrow view (sorry if I am way off base) of what is going on here I really feel like you need to step back and think about what you are doing. It looks to me like you are going to blow your inheritance on purchasing just a camera body. There is a hell of a lot more gear that you are going to need that will need to be rented and that renting is going to continue to cost you more and more money.

 

This camera will not make you a better film maker and the look that you are after that you posted in previous pages has as much to do with the color grading as it does with the camera itself. If you think that purchasing this camera is going to automatically get you the look you are after you are mistaken.

 

I understand the desire to want to use the best and to have gear that can deliver fantastic imagery but you do not need an Alexa to do that. If you want a camera that can deliver a filmic image then look into the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. The cinema camera is often refered to as a baby Alexa because it has the ability to shoot ProRes, 2.5K raw, has a lot of dynamic range, and a very filmic color science and grain pattern. It will set you back $2000 and with it you get resolve which is a fantastic color grading tool, the kind of tool that will absolutely be necessary for you to get the look you are after. With the rest of your money you can spend several thousand and get all the lighting, audio, rigging, storage, lenses, and computer hardware you would need going forward. Then put the rest of the money away for another day.

 

I personally own a Blackmagic Cinema Camera and am picking up old Konvas lenses(they are old russian s35mm cinema lenses) very reasonable prices on ebay to use with them. Together they make a lovely combination and there are plenty of budget friendly anamorphic lenses out there, especially if you don't mind having a dual focus setup. At this point my biggest hurdle in getting a filmic image is not from the camera or the lens, I can get fantastic images. It is from the lack of proper rigging, dolly's, etc... that is holding me back. Being able to get smooth stable shots is a huge step from looking armature to professional.

 

Unless you are going to be making a large budget feature film you do not need an Alexa, if you were filthy rich and wanted to get one I would not say a word but that doesn't appear to be your situation. Again, sorry if I am way off base here and good luck however you decide to proceed.

Edited July 24, 2014 by David Hessel

[Michael Landon]

People seemed too mad at me. An update: I decided to return the camera as per the conditions of the buying house I signed with. I did have to pay a "rental" amount equivilant to how long i had it (2 days / 1200$)...but I decided that perhaps blowing all my change in one basket where Technology is known to be outdated is not the best bet. In either case, getting hands on with the ALEXA was a nice experience.

 

I myself am looking for a more modest RED camera than the ALEXA. I will rent it first and see if I may buy it...but it seems like Renting is the way to go for me.

[Michael LaVoie]

I know a DP who bought an Alexa and rarely ended up using it because it was receiving constant show rentals. Enough that he bought a second one. Seems like a pretty safe investment to me. If you can turn it into passive income like that.