georg lamshöft

Inception: I was underwhelmed, maybe I expected more "65mm-show-off"-shots instead of 35mm-handhelf!? But overall, it looked very well and Mr. Pfister was overlooked for "Dark Knight" ("Slumdog?" for what?)

The ARRIFLEX 235 as well as the ARRICAMs can be used as 2perf-cameras. But since only the ARRICAMs (Lite) are sync-sound, they're the real competitors to Penelope.

They ended up with the lowest-noise, highest DR and best tonal range digital camera system around. So why should we blame them for this unusual technical approach? We should rather ask why other manufacturers don't incorporate this technology...

@Mathew Rudenberg The analogue sensor signal is amplified before the AD-conversion. These amplifiers are also used to change ASA in most cameras, that's why it differs from pushing the image in post. AD-converters are defined by many different parameters (bit depth, noise, speed...) that are often not easily understandable - just putting a high-bit-converter behind the amplifier will create high-bit files (14bit, 16bit) but not necessarily a better (more dynamic range, better tonal transitions, lower noise) image. ALEXA reads out two amplifier signals per pixel, one is a high-gain (strong amplification), the other one is a low-gain signal. They use 14bit-ADCs to convert the two signals and merge them into one true 16bit-file. What I'm tryiing to say: The exact reason why they use this specific technique remains unclear, theoretically, a low-noise amplifier and a high-quality 16bit-ADC could extract the very same low-noise, high-DR signal from the photosite. But maybe those amplifiers or ADCs are not available or they use the redundant information within the two 14bit-conversions to reduce random noise? We don't know. Since the sensor-readout is fast enough to process more than two full-readouts within 1/24s, HDR "RED-style" would be an easy thing to do - just shooting 2 times the frame rate and altering exposure every second readout - basically every CMOS-sensor can do that. Then you just need a software to merge two images into one - no magic here. But how do you get rid of the temporal artifacts? You don't - at least never all of it.

I think film grain and digital noise can be used as a conscious visual tool and it's stupid that certain (younger?) blu-ray-reviewers interpret any kind of grain as an artifact and prefer a waxy over-filtered image. But in most cases, IT IS just that, an artifact. Something not real, not-conscious - a by-product of the limitations of aquisition technology. Therefore it can become really distracting and annoying. Film grain is at least an "analogue artifact", it lacks the artificial appearance of digital artifacts - but take "Black Swan" for example, a great movie, but the heavy grain makes it lack "depth" - I would have preferred a cleaner, rich look and some grain to accentuate certain scenes, not cover the whole movie with it. "Dancer in the Dark" ? Don't get me started, I saw this highly acclaimed "anti-Hollywood"-movie once, that was enough... It's so ugly, it hurts! It's pretentious ugly. But it fits the story, which is as primitive (the bad American robs the poor, blind immigrant...) as any "Transformers"-movie - but that's a different story. Why did Björk vaste her talent for this film? I cannot imagine working on this movie was much fun for a skilled DoP anyway What's next? Lars von Trier shooting a film with lens cap on? No, sorry, not every film has to be shoot on grainless 15perf-IMAX to produce glossy postcard-images on every scene, but cinematography is also about aesthetics - pointing a handheld available-light camcorder somewhere is not exactly aesthetic - whether it's called "Blair Witch" or "Dancer in the Dark" - now hate me for this comparison ;-)

Looks magnificent! 4k DI and Master Primes - a nice combination widely available since nearly 5 years and how often used? Little Children, No Country for old Men? But how we are going to see "Tree of Life" in an appropriate way? At least in Germany cinemas have no interest in using their 4k-projectors in 4k-mode... :blink: Will they release it as an IMAX-print? If there are many scenes from RED in the trailer, they're well hidden. Even judging from the compressed HD-trailer it doesn't look REDish anywhere. By the way: "The Thin Red Line" looks like a Blu-Ray really should look like and is definitely worth watching!

The basse plate has two 3/8" threaded holes as well - so your concern is the short basis - levering out the camera by adding force at the back or front? As far as I know, the base plate is machined steel, 3 times stiffer than aluminium - when it's attached correctly and made out of high-quality materials (chinese crap screw flood the market) - and this is the last thing I would worry about with ARRI - it would be hard to rip it off or damaging it. They regulary mount it that way even with gigantic lenses. If you still don't trust the short base, there is a second attachment point at the back, used by adapters like the ARRI QR-HD-1 - there are other solutions as well, just ask ARRI.

I had an introduction to the technology a few years ago - but scanning 16mm wasn't the topic. So the optical magnification is actually changed by moving the lens to always use the full sensor wideness? I tought S16 only uses half the sensor and 3k is achieved by microscanning, therefore not menationing the possibility of 6k/4k with 16mm. It would have been interesting to see the results in the 4k+-document, instead they used an optical element to simulate "10k" !? The difference was quite noticeable, pointing out that current scanning technology still limits the resolution/MTF. That's something I didn't expect, but this forum is also there to learn new stuff, thanks!

@Elliot Rudmann Are you sure? I always thought the ARRISCAN works with a fixed magnification and only uses half the sensor wideness for S16 and therefore is only capable of3k->2k @ S16? Am I completely wrong and 3k 16mm really means no microscanning but an adjusted optical magnification?

S16 @ 4k is 160lp/mm - high-end lenses and certain low-speed b/w-stocks can have usable information in this range - stock shot on Vivid with old Zeiss SS? I doubt it. It would be interesting to know which scanner is used, massive oversampling (scanning with higher resolution than the actual negative contains information) can lower the information loss caused by scanning. My guess: it won't help much but when the budget allows it and maximum quality is needed, it's worth a try. "Grain get's blown up" by grain-alaising. Scanning at a very low resolution (<1500ppi with fine-grained stocks) causes barely any noticable grain at all, high resolution (>4000ppi actual scanner resolution) starts to detect actual grain - everything in-between can cause alaising between the size of the grains and the scanner resolution. The result is more "noise" in the finale image than there actually is in the source material (like moire in shooting test charts - huge structures appear in the image where the chart actually shows fine patterns). So material scannend at 4k and downsampled to 2k can look less grainy than 2k directly scanned. But these are numbers for S35 - 2k @ S16 (4000ppi)0 should propably not cause alaising. @Elliot Rudmann 4k S16 with the ARRISCAN? I thought it "only" scans 3k downsampled to 2k output with S16?

The majority of "Inception" was shot on 35mm anamorphic and it still looked great - it's a pity that Warner (again) blew the Blu-Ray-transfer... The Epic has 5k - I'm not sure how well a downsampled 4k-RGB-image looks like, but oversampling (ARRI claims 1.5x linear is the minimum -> 2880 pixel to 1920 pixels) is crucial to justify the expense of a 4k workflow. Otherwise you end up with a mushy image full of artifacts from debayering in critical situations. Will it be close to a 35mm-DI when shooting a test chart? Propably, but that tells very little about overall IQ in real-world situations. Even with 2k digital projection, many well-made 35mm-films look more detailed than RED. 4k in digital aquisition is still a marketing gag. Does 4k projection look better from 4k RED-source material? Yes. Does it give 2times (linear) the resolution? Not even close. I'm not saying that "the social network" always looked bad, but in critical scenes it clearly lacked "visual richness". And now there are claims that by increasing resolution 10-20% (I don't know if Fincher used 4.5k RedRAW) you not just overtake 35mm anamorphic, but also Vistavision! RED claimed to be superior to film even with the first R1 - now, 3 years later, we saw the results in cinema on various features - and they couldn't fullfil these expectations. ARRI chose 2k/1080p output because otherwise the photosites on the sensor would become too small. They still work on an on-board recording solution for real RAW - a difficult task because even at the relatively low resolution of Alexa it takes up to 700MB per second (I guess they want it to work up to 60fps). I'm sure they will come up with a real 4k camera some day, but right now, the recording & sensor-technology is too limited (even Alexa only looks close to film). We don't have to buy/ use compromised "4k"-cameras now to push manufacturers like ARRI or Panavision to develop proper ones... "The Hobbit" costs several hundred million $ - they could have raised the bar in aquisition technology (waiting till 4k is ready, using Vistavision, 65mm, IMAX) for them and others to follow - but they didn't. So is it "big news" ? I doubt it. Does Peter Jackson care or will it compromise the potential success? No.

"The producers" usually try to push digital technology over the head of the artists. A few years ago, sub-1M€ small-budget movies were regulary shot on 35mm. Now, in times of HD and RED, it's just too expensive... 5k, 120fps... It all sounds nice until you look closer (5k are only 20% than 4k, compressed output...) but the proof is in the pudding as we all know. I've seen "the social network" (director with incredible visual skills - same sensor-technology as Epic) shortly after "Inception" - simply no comparison! They we're worlds apart! Fincher even worked with the sharpest lenses available - it didn't help at all. So there is no special technical reason not to choose 35mm for 3D? Then "the Hobbit"-visuals will be seriously limited by the cameras used, just because the want to be cool - people didn't seem to care with "Avatar"... But is this really the direction we want to take? Shouldn't we wait with digital aquisition until technology is ready and not just a "looks somehow like film"-compromise?

To what extent depends the weight and handling of a 3D-rig on the camera? I guess ARRI had a good reason to put the ALEXA in such a rugged body with this elaborate cooling-system. I also heard that large DoF is crucial for 3D-work - but large 35mm-style cameras have "faster" sensors with higher sensitivity, you can further stop down to achieve large DoF. But you can also use open apertures to minimize DoF when necessary - that's not so easy with 2/3"-cameras (Mauro Fiore complained about that on "Avatar"). Panavision wants a 4k-camera, that's not an easy task. Their dynamax-sensor has 37MP to create a native 4k-RGB-signal OR a high dynamic range! The photosites are so small that they seriously limit the ability for better tonal transition and dynamic range. That's why the ALEXA has a relatively low pixel count - it's sensitivity, dynamic/tonal range seems unmatched by any digital aquisition medium! That's why Nikon still offers the "low-rez" D3s with 12MP - higher per-pixel-IQ. Real 4k will come, but not at this stage of sensor-technology. A good 4k DI of 35mm outperforms these sensors easily - even David Fincher wasn't capable to get rid of the "videoish"-look despite using the latest RED-sensor. What's important for filmmakeras is the choice. They need to be trained to use film and know it's qualities and then choose whether they want digital or film. Producers seem to force the use of digital - they don't care about the artists intention. They don't care if it's better or cheaper - it has to be digital, period. And we have to keep the basic infrastructure alive (R&D, production of film stock, development and processing) - I'm not sure if the shareholder-value-driven structure of Kodak is suitable for that. Right now they're making more film stock than ever!

The size and weight of the RED Epic makes it a very interesting choice for a 3D-rig. I personally would not want to handle an ARRI Alexa 3D-rig... Why isn't there a 35mm-3D-rig in use? Two Aaton Penelope are not so huge at all. I mean besides the extreme cost for twice the film stock in such a humble, small project... The RED Epic uses the current generation RED-sensor just in a different size. So it will propably look like "the social network" - I couldn't stand it a second time on the big screen... But I'm not a big fan of the Tolkien-stuff anyway, I liked most the first LotR and it went downhill from there and I'll wait for "Batman rises" on 15perf 70mm - THAT's 21st century image-quality!

I'm looking forward to see it! And I'm watching the focus closely ;-)

Looks cool, but why do the skin tones and tonal transitions (especially the "real" scenes with the two guys talking to each other) literally SCREAM digital?

"Inception" (despite being anamorphic - not S35) looked brilliant on 70mm-IMAX. Not über-sharp (they didn't even scan from the ON) but quite detailed (definitely beyond HD) and surpringly smooth with very little grain and yet no artifacts of DNR. From my experience (cinema, blu-ray, still photography scans) 4k scans are less grainy than 2k scans at the same magnification. 4k starts to see individual grain, 2k just shows an alaising artifact that looks somehow like grain (-> see the 4k+ document from ARRI). That's why 4k mastering even makes sense for restoration of old films (Blade Runner, Aliens...) even if it's just an 1080p output. A proper 4k DI with digital 4k projection from a modern 35mm stock should look excellent! Even if there is prominent grain, it doesn't seem to be so difficult to remove it without adding additional artifacts. As far as I understand, certain people already insist on 4k DIs for quite some time - like Roger Deakins. It doesn't seem to be an question of absolute budget but of the willingness to spend a few additional bucks at all. In comparison, so called 4k-aquisition with bayer-filtered cameras doesn't even look very detailed at 2k in comparison.

Fincher cannot afford Film... Come on :lol: Benjamin Button was propably as expensive as all of Kubricks films together... In the interviews I've read he complaint about handling or noise issues of the Viper, he had to order custom-made lightweight RED cameras for the boat-scenes... In my eyes it's quite the opposite, he goes through quite some trouble to shot digital and end up with this technical quality!? Even HD-dailies from new video assists are not an issue with current 35mm-systems - another reason for him to shot digital I've read about. I seriously think he shots the same reason Mr. Lucas uses digital: because film is outdated... "Benjamin Button" was wonderfully shot and the horrible 35mm-print (5th or 6th generation?) didn't show any lack of detail from the camera - it was soft anyway. The Viper uses lot's of photosites (I think it's not oversampling but a "coupling" of photosites?) to create a high-quality 1080p-signal, propably better than all the other 2/3"-cameras are capable of, but since alaising (AA-filter with 0 contrast at 1080 lines) has to be avoided much more than 800 lines of resolution with high MTF are not possible. It doesn't look shockingly bad because we are used to bad 2k-telecine-DIs from 35mm and bad 35mm projection - but it has nothing to do with what's possible with 35mm itself, that would have been perfectly appropriate and affordable by any Fincher-project. I'm sorry, I don't buy it - it was a huge disappointment, technically. Not as bad as "the Informant!" but it could have been so much more, IMHO!

I meant that he cares a lot about visuals (the artistic side) but doesn't care about the technical quality (resolution, DR, tonal transitions/reproduction) - I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. If it would have been a low-budget piece without the money to pay for a DI, it would make sense. But these movies are made with DIs anyway - the aquisition medium doesn't matter much - it's digital in the process anyway. I didn't notice much CGI but I didn't looked fo it, either. As I said, it was a very well shot movie (in an artistic way) and Mr. Fincher and his DoP clearly have the skill to light a movie well, propably better than many people using film. But whenever the scene got more demanding/complex, the technical quality was lacking, IMHO. "Color reproduction" is an often misunderstood criteria, of course you can transfer nearly any tone/color into another with digital tools, so you can create "normal" skin tones with any aquisition medium when you put enough work into it. But how does it affect the overall tonal reproduction? "The social network" was a typical example, certain scenes looked well (just like heavily manipulated film) but others entirely fell apart (especially with natural light / high contrast). Look at "Se7en" or "The Game" and tell me they don't look superior!? Or the NYC-credits from "Panic Room": rich, saturated, contrasty with lots of "depth" - there was not a single scene in "the social network" like that. It was mushy/low contrast by purpose or clearly lacked "depth" in high contrast scenes. Well, we in Germany have 4k projectors but don't use them without the 3D-lenses resulting in 2k :blink: But I thought there was a 4k master (shot and projected in 4k? Anyway, even in 2k, the 35mm-films looked crispier. Mr. Fincher shot his two previous films with a 2/3"-sensor-camera! It can barely capture 800 lines of information! Maybe it was even a good thing for "Benjamin Button", making the CGI less artificial looking... He didn't care, he HATES film, He WANTS digital - at any cost. Anyway, the movie itself was made very well. Nothing clearly stood out, but it was certainly better than his previous films. Mush less about "facebook" but an overall timeless statement about business, people and friendship.

@Phil Sorry, just found your question. Older designs like the Superspeeds show more aberrations (coma, chromatic aberrations), especially in difficult situations (open aperture, edges on wideangles...), also contrast and sharpness is lower. Some people like these flaws/aberrations and use it to create a distinctive "look" (just like the blue flares and distortion became a trademark for anamorphics). New designs like the Ultra Primes show less aberrations, they have an overall "cleaner" and "perfect" look. Sharpness and contrast is higher (usually more noticeable at open apertures, especially when considering using the Superspeed beyond the capabilities of the Ultra Primes - <T1.9), less prone to flare... I don't think the Superspeeds are bad lenses, they were state-of-the-art in the 1970s and many cinematographers relied on them. But when (for whatever reason) these old lenses are sold for very high prices, I would seriously rethink buying them. Despite the sometimes pleasant and welcome "look" the technical superior lenses like Ultra Primes are usually the better choice because adding a distinctive "look" to them (with filters e.g.) is much easier then getting rid of the particular "look" of the Superspeeds. But this is about optical performance, I'm not sure how relevant the mechanical advancements of the Ultra Primes are. Hope that makes sense!?

Well, the ARRISCAN takes up to 24 exposures for each frame (LED flashes in three different colors with two different intensities each and for four positions of the sensor due to micro-scanning) - that's by any means not comparable to the sensor with bayer-filter array used in cameras. But I never had problems gaining full information (from Dmin to Dmax) from still negative film with conventional film-scanners (Nikon or Imacon) - only slides. But I know film stock has a wider latitude - maybe it's densities are different as well? I thought the idea of the ARRISCAN was to lose less quality then from a direct contact print?

Isn't the dynamic range within negative film "compressed" - at least in still photography negative film is muss less demanding in terms of density than slide film!? Maybe ARRI will implement the ALEV-III-sensor into the ARRISCAN as well but right now, they're busy putting it into enough ALEXAs... In recent interviews, Mr. Kraus (ARRI CEO) was obviously disappointed because they offer a complete 4k system (scanner + recorder) but nobody wants to pay for it, what are all these scanners good for when producers only dream of digital aquisition!?

Mr. Fincher always puts a lot of effort into details - he is a visual artisan. But to be honest - technically - "Zodiac" and "Benjamin Button" weren't up to the standard of his previous films and "the Social Network" wasn't either. And despite the vastly different visual themes they all shared certain aspects of digital aquisition - he doesn't want digital look, he wants digital. Sharp but not really detailed (tpyical for digital-sharpened images with high MTF at low frequencies but low MTF at high frequencies), desperate to hide limited DR (since when do you light for the camera and not for the scene?), bad tonal transition with weird skin-tones at times. I saw it with 2k projection and the trailers from some 35mm-shot-movies looked more brilliant and detailed. Then I saw "Inception" on 70mm IMAX and I was spoiled... More detailed, barely any grain and rich-looking - all that on a 4 times larger screen! Mr. Fincher seriously limits the quality of his work by his technical choices, I'm absolutely sure that even Super35 with a state-of-the-art 4k DI could have looked MUCH better. I will watch his future work on TV - that's enough (or maybe digital camera technology will catch up - because he obviously doesn't care). I don't care if Mr. Soderbergh or von Trier choose the "digital revolution" because I don't care much for their (visual) work anyway - but Mr. Fincher? That hurts.

I didn't saw "Che" as well but his last movies (all shot on RED) looked hideous - I think I would make it look that way to pull people away from RED... ;-) Didn't they even shot Danish features in VHS-C and called it "Dogma 95"? I'll think Mr. Fincher is a better benchmark for quality in digital aquisition... :-) I just saw "Inception" on 70mm IMAX and was really surprised who well the 35mm-parts held up (better than on Dark Knight). It looked more detailed and brilliant than the restorated 70mm-version of "Lawrence from Arabia" I saw on Berlinale - that's how far 35mm (lenses, film stock, >4k DI) has evolved - it's lightyears ahead of Genesis, RED, D21 or Alexa! I think we seem to forget what 35mm is capable of when constantly watching Blu-Rays (with questionable film-transfer) and bad 35mm/2k-projection.

Interesting thought but what are his excuses for Zodiac and Benjamin Button? After paying 8€ for a mushy, artificial looking digital projection of "the social network" (and similiar disappointments with his previous films) I will rather watch his future work on TV - adequate to it's technical quality. I hope that Mr. Ruhe gets the chance to further work with higher standards in international cinema. P.S. Isn't it ironic that people like Mr. Fincher or Mann use cheap digital aquisition while they would get paid even 65mm and people like Mr. Ruhe have to work with digital cameras because a producer tells them film is too expensive? How did this happen? Does it have to happen?