georg lamshöft

"1/5 of the resolution" What about spending a little bit less money and effort into marketing and invest into craftmanship, production, social/environmental/eductional standards instead? Yes, that would actually mean to risk something, making long-term investments that don't pay off within 3 or 4 years. Or simply accept the side-effects of 21th-century slave-labour and outsourcing policy. But whining about being behind schedule (it's not just the mysterious "bug") while not willing to move production out of a sweatshop and at the same time claiming to offer similar (or superior) quality standards than companys that actually pay their (yes, they actually PRODUCE things - these 19th century basterds) production staff well, that care about complex processes and well-trained technicians and have to endure a lot in comparison to much cheaper competition but still stick to their standards? I seriously hope that for once, at least in this market, cheap, stylish sweatshop-stuff won't win over craftmanship, please!

Thanks for explanation, the preview and speed-issue (I totally forgot about the mirror) makes sense, although the alternative (ARRICAM Lite, HD-IVS + 5219) would offer HD-preview and 500ASA at about the same weight (~9kg per camera) and I would be very surprised to see quality even close to it from ALEXA. They vastly improved sensitivity, but how does that affect the look? The D-21 was still "just a video camera", IMHO. Richardson & Scorsese never seemed like big fans of this, but Scorsese making a child-book-adaptation in 3D (!!!) - maybe he just wants to experiment!?

Maybe "Girlfriend Experience" is a bad example at all - either discussing Steven Soderbergh as Cinematographer & Director or the camera system he used, because it's very low-budget. It had some "normal" looking daylight-scenes (what was the "Informant"-look about? Was it meant to look 70s?), but I thought the indoor-scenes were mostly horrible - barely any lighting to speak of, pushing the camera way beyond it's limits: http://www.thehdcrowd.com/sceenshots/the_girlfriend_experience_5.png Anyway, I don't think that it has something to do with Soderbergh being director & cinematographer at once. I admire his ability to switch genres, styles, low-budget and blockbuster - but I cannot say I'm a big fan of his work, especially his last movies (this is not about RED, I thought Good German was odd despite being filmed on 35mm).

1080p widescreen from a 2/3"-CCD-camera with Fujinon zoom-lenses (more than 600 lines with good contrast would be surprising!) cannot be "crisp" on a 28m-wide screen... But there's simply no usable digital camera that can generate 4k without massive interpolation anyway. ALEXA has 3k native resolution to allow for large photosites - they are more than twice as large than RED allowing for larger DR and better noise handling - simple physics given comparable basic technical standards. That's why Nikon still has it's 12MP D3s and not just the 24MP D3x. It's not difficult to design or manufacture a sensor with high megapixel-count, generating a usable 4k-image from it (given the size limitation of Super35-systems) with a good workflow which is worth the hassle vs. "really good" 2k is the problem. Another topic: Robert Richardson started shooting 3D with ALEXA for Scorseses new project and they seem to use this Pace-rig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIs9hm3AsnU. I wonder why they don't just use 35mm? A 3D-rig consisting of 35mm-cameras shouldn't be more heavy or larger than the ALEXA-rig!? Please don't tell me that producers don't want to pay for twice the film stock for Martin Scorsese...

"I think if it works it works" I agree and it makes sense what he says in the interview. But when looking at his newer work (Girlfriend Experience, Informant) I wonder if he has lost it. Yeah, I know, they should look like crap, sure... Even my 80cm-SDTV was too much for that, my eyes would have started to bleed if I had seen it on the big screen... It looks like an anti-RED-commercial.

At least on HD-level, grain is nowadays a non-issue with 35mm - it's clean when you want it to - but it still looks entirely different than RED (or Genesis or D21) - the "Inglorious Basterds" Blu-Ray for example - hardly any scene could have been shot with digital despite the lack of grain in most scenes. To my eyes, they "cover" the aesthetic the cinematographer was looking for always with their very own, I barely see a trailer (720p Quicktime!) that doesn't scream "digital but wants to look like film" made with these so-called cine-cameras. Sure, we must not forget that the majority of the look is created by the cinematographer himself and his ability to use the specific strengths/weaknesses of his equipment - but technology should give him more and not less freedom to do so, especially when it's sold as "revolution" or "celluloid-killer". Many RED-movies are poorly done (budget?) but many 16/35mm-movies are as well (90% are propably done from an DI of a 2k-telecine adding "digital" look). I think it's a bad sign that we (as an audience) can still distinguish camera systems from the final product - in still-photography you barely can, when seeing just final prints (derived from an unknown process from RAW-files) - the dfference in source-IQ must be huge. Use RED or Genesis or whatever when the look is really what you want - but please don't make it appear like something that it simply isn't. I think it's insulting to the craft of the artist that producers can decide which tool is the right one and certain companies profit (and enhance) this hype - it's a shame and worth discussing. I bet that - while not consciously - many audiences appreciate the IQ of a well-made film, I bet "Inception" will make lot's of money in our IMAX despite the ticket-prices and the lack of 3D - just like TDK did. The more of this "looks nearly as film most of the time"-aesthetic of digital cine-cameras becomes standard, even more audiences will appreciate a more natural look.

From an audience's point of view I see this specific "RED"-look as well. I think all digital cameras have a specific look, which doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing, but it isn't really a valid criteria when judging these systems, IMHO. You could compare it to still photography: A simple Canon Rebel with a good lens in the hands of a good photographyer and well lit will generate exzellent results - but it doesn't make it a professional tool, although it would be hard to tell prints apart from a professional camera under the very same, ideal circumstances. But the more difficult, uncontrolled these circumstances become and the more you want to manipulate the "native look" of the camera, the more differences in the quality of the cameras/technologies become apparent. That's why professional still-photographers use rather unconvinient MFDBs instead of smaller DSLRs, mostly not because of more megapixels but the more flexible files. They have big reserves to adjust them to the artists wishes. In the cinematography-world, this flexible medium is film. The tonal reproduction, DR or resolution might not be visible within every project/ scene but it gives flexible "RAW-data" that can look natural, contrasty, classic, flat or even digital - whatever the artists wants. Digital cine-cameras don't seem to have this variety and the more you push the outside it's natural look or capabilities, the more the "artificial/plasticy"-look becomes visible. Just my two cents.

What's really interesting about the DALSA-sensor is it's fill-rate (the amount of area which is actually light sensitive) - Aaton claims it's close to 100%, while high-end CMOS-designs barely reach 70% - that's an ideal starting position to achieve high DR and low noise. There have been major improvements in sensor design over the past five years, therefore it's very unlikely that it's based on such an old design (Origin). Sure, it's based on DALSAs past experiences and propably design philosophies - but a sensor with another fill-rate and/or pixel-pitch has to be a complete redesign - other than the MFDB-sensors from DALSA which are offered in different resolutions/sizes but are cut from the very same wafer and made with the very same technology. Cost is an issue because of the high R&D-investments for advanced semiconductor design and manufacturing, the D20/D21 or Origin was a working prototype, the ALEXA otherwise is a larger production-scale model from ARRIs perspective. The manufacturing costs themselves and the ways to improve them (by reducing the reject rate for example) are only relevant for REALLY large scale-production, it doesn't change the cost of a >50k€-system (I think the optical viewfinder model will cost as much as the D21) - these are professional systems, designed with high quality-standards, finest materials, skilled technicians make them (and not Foxconn in some sweatshop with workers trained a few weeks) and tight tests assure tight tolerances (and propably high reject rates) - I don't think we will see cameras in the class of ALEXA or the Aaton HD-mag much cheaper, not because of lower semiconductor costs.

When I first heard about it, I thought it was a cheap marketing trick pushed by Canon because they talked always about shallow DoF but only mentioned f2.8-zooms (~DoF of S35 @ f2) but using >f1.4-lenses on a full-frame-HDSLR is of course a different thing. I think it was well photographed (as always) but added a very specific look due to it's equipment - maybe it was the right choice for this specific episode but I think normally, equipment has to allow for a wide array looks - 35mm seems to be the superior choice in this regard, IMHO. I think the lack of tonal range & DR was quite noticeable (even with crappy SDTV). "the audience doesn't care" Well, they don't care about cinematography as well... But I think, at least on an unconscious level they feel the difference between a 35mm-show and one of the many HD-cam shows (mostly not sourced from HDSLRs, of course), ESPEACIALLY when video-content becomes more popular - it stands out, it feels more "cinematic", friends that know nothing about cinematography, HDSLRs, RED or 35mm have agreed on that.

I'm not sure if the Genesis (or the nearly identical F35) is the only viable option for digital cinematography, well experienced DPs who know the limits of their equipment can create nice, somehow "cinematic" images even from 2/3"-HD-cams. But that's not the point, they make lots of money with the big TV-productions and I think given all the effort put into writing, production design and cinematography of these shows the cinematographers have to be able to use proper equipment. I repeat myself: I don't see any point in shooting a >>1Mio$-episode with anything less than 35mm. Does anybody really thinks that any of these shows can only survive with cost-cuttings enabled by digital aquisition or any cent saved ever reaches any artist? "House" or "Castle" looks much better and "cinematic" than all Genesis/D-21/RED-shot series I'm aware of. I only see "House" in PAL-resolution, but the moment I see a contrasty scene of Mr. Lauries' unshaved face with crispness, smooth rendition, perfect skin-tones and depth I know that it's still 35mm - not HD. Once I told my family what they have to pay attention to, even they noticed the difference easily! The very popular German TV-seres "Tatort" once switched to Betacam (or Digibeta?) and audience members (many of them are >50 years old women who have no clue about cinematography!) complained about it so they had to switch back to S16. They tried to switch to RED (for no obvious reason) recently but they had to stop their plans because the workflow was too complicated... Makes me wonder who pushes digital again and again and again... Is it really the artists?

T2.8 http://www.angenieux.com/?rub=42&art=45 Do Angenieux-lenses still come in those satin-boxes? Or do they just use a regular coffin instead to transport the 24-290 :lol:

Usually, that's the way it is done. But it's not the same as machining it from a solid block. ARRI has it's own casting subsidary because it was widely used in the past. But as CNC-machining, tools and alloys (with a much better choice of modern high-strength alloys than with die-casting) advanced, machining it from a solid block became the superior (but expensive) choice in many cases and the casting-subsidary continued to work only for bigger parts or other industries as well. We as customers only see a small part of the image and these signs are quite often the only way to get a basic idea about the mindset of a product or company instead of listening to it's marketing.

6k would result in a pixel-pitch of just over 4µm - a loss of 2 stops sensitivity, significant loss of DR and no way to record uncompressed (>>1Gb/s - even a 4x Raid0-SSD-array isn't capable of that). On the other hand, 6k downsampled to 4k are the only way to achieve usable MTF / low artifacts with a OLPF & Bayer-based system and gain actual IQ to justify the use/effort/cost of a 4k output - technology is simply not there, yet and it's not an accident that the ARRISCAN (which actually uses the older D-20/21-technology) takes 24 (!) single images (2x14Bit = 16Bit, 4x microscanning for 6k and 3x for RGB) to create a real 4k image. You get what you pay for, I know the quality standards of ARRI and their suppliers and even though the sensor (as well as basic ICs) itself might be similar regarding production technology, the ALEXA appears to be a professional camera with the very same quality in design and production we got used to over the past decades. ARRI pays several hundred highly-trained "Facharbeiter" (trained for several years by ARRI and special technical schools - only a small minority of "Made in Germany" is done by "trained-on-the-job"-people) to run production instead of off-shoring it to Singapore (no Facharbeiter, 3-6x lower wages), ARRI uses a machined body to ensure tight tolerances and stability instead of using a simple die-cast-process - I'm sure there are hundreds of these differences in detail we don't even have an idea about. I love the idea of one genius pulling the strings behind a product with full responsibility instead of some hired managers from business-school - that's how many great products and whole technical revolutions were started! But the RED products themself speak a different language - compressed, interpolated 4k instead of 2k, re-labeling Sigma-lenses, false claims, caring about marketing instead of production... I'm sure many people have found the perfect tool in RED, many great artists "make it sing" - but please don't mix it up with the effort ARRI & Panavision has invested over the last decades to deliver professional tools, otherwise only RED-standards will continue to exist, whether the camera has RED, Arri, Panavision, Panasonic or Sony written on it. We already lost several industries that way.

Compact Primes share the same optical formula as the consumer-grade ZF-still-lenses. The ZF-lenses are designed by Zeiss but manufactured by Cosina (and tested with Zeiss-equipment) in Japan, the Compact Primes on the other side are manufactured to tighter tolerances by Carl Zeiss in Jena/Oberkochen (although I think the mechanical elements are made by a supplier elsewhere in Germany - shouldn't be an issue ;-).

I can imagine a sensor upgrade is possible, but the whole sensor board (including the electronics that control the sensor) has to be changed. Desolder the sensor and re-use the filters ? No chance. Given the high cost for the necessary replacement parts, the replacement itself (calibration, dust-free-environment - all in the factory, definitely not in the basement of the retailer ;-) and remaining components of a camera without optical viewfinder (a well-made housing with power supply and cooling is all what remains) it won't be easy and cheap and therefore not a solution for everyone. Higher pixel counts without smaller pixel-pitches can only be achieved with a beam-splitter design and three sensors which seems unlikely given the incompatibility with S35-accessoires (even Sony doesn't like this technology with larger sensors). The other possibility, larger sensors beyond S35+overscan (about ~30mm wide) cannot be manufactured at once, they are "stitched", which is a tricky process for professional purposes (of course the stitched "sensor parts" are not exactly the same). And you need new lenses (I don't think rehoused Full-Frame lenses from the amateur market are a good idea) - you lose MTF within the lens, DoF is reduced, you'll have to stop down further - you're turning in circles - just like with smaller pixel-pitches. So we're talking about compromises in the end. And of course the high pixel-count itself, as correctly mentioned, the read-rate has to be increased as well (or the number of outputs on the sensor) which generates a bunch of new problems (noise, heat, balancing channels)... Right now, S35-sized sensors for oversampled 2k-output seem to have reached a point of acceptable quality for many purposes (and even an advantage in sensitivity in comparison to film?) but using four times (!) smaller photosites with about 2 stops less sensitivity and DR (not exactly, because of the lower relative enlargement) for 4k-output without even having a chance to record uncompressed 4k (although Aaton claims to record 800MB/s with a simple 2xSSD-Raid0 somehow!? Aren't 4k@16bit and 24fps already >>1GB/s and what happens at higher frame rates?) seems a bit far fetched in my opinion.

The "I have more k than you" argument is a bit tricky: The ALEV-III (sensor of the Alexa) has a pixel-pitch (distance from one center of each photosite to the next) of 8,25µm (=68,06µm²) which results in 3072 (3,5k are overscan for the viewfinder) "pixels" (pixels are a mathematical/IT term within the data, the photosites are the actual, physical entities on the sensor) at about 25mm wideness. The RED uses a 5,4µm (= 29,16µm² - less than half the area of Alexa given similar fill-rate) pixel-pitch which results in 4520 pixels (the active area at 4k is therefore a bit narrower than S35). Even when stronger downsampling (from 4k instead of 3k) to 2k might enhance quality, the smaller photosites limit the "per-pixel"-IQ (noise and DR). It's not difficult to achieve large amounts of megapixels even on a given sensor-size (the sensor-architecture for a few cents used in mobile-phone cameras would result in 12-16k in a S35-sized sensor!), it's a conscious decision of engineers and has very little to do with know-how or costs. ARRI decided for 3k to enable large photosites (low noise, high DR -> "per-pixel"-IQ) while still oversampling (3k-2k) to minimize negative effects/artifacts of the bayer-interpolation (2/3 of the color information is interpolated) and enhancing MTF/avoiding alaising (at 3k the contrast has to be zero, achieved by the AA-filter, which also reduces contrast below 3k). The goal is always a high MTF (contrast over frequency/resolution). The term "3,5k" is just a stupid marketing gag, started by RED and has nothing to do with the actual quality of the 2k-output (4k is not very efficient because neither 4k of the MX or 5k of the EPIC will offer decent MTF and expose artifacts at this size). Sensitivity is tricky as well. The actual sensitivity doesn't depend on photosite-size (while it has a positive effect on noise and DR) - the ALEVIII has a base-sensitivity of 800ASA which means that it reaches it's IQ-limit at this point (I have no idea how they want to obtain IQ below 800ASA) without any tricks/amplification while the RED-architecture still seems to offer 200/320ASA-base-sensitivity - maybe they can offer better S/N-ratio/DR pushed up to 800ASA than ALEXA - although that's unlikely (amplification always decreases IQ so their IQ has to be much better at base sensitivity already to offer enough reserves at 800ASA). To make a long story short: all these numbers tell us very little about actual IQ. RED was kind enough to give a concrete number of R&D-effort after my last "attack" but it's still a pretty closed business. We can assume that even while a lot of electronics/sensor-development is actually done by RED/ARRI/Panavision now, most of the know-how lies within the actual fabrication of the sensor and the limits in sensor-design are similar. It's propably not an accident that RED hits the very same fps-limit (60fps@3k, but windowed) as the ARRI and the quality depends more on different compromises (engineering vs. marketing, "k" vs. MTF, transparency vs color separation of filters. The main differences lie within the camera, the handling, build-quality, workflow... ARRI and Panavision develop from the professional cinematographers perspective (although Alexa marketing is a little bit too bright for an engineers-company like ARRI) - ARRI offers 2k uncompressed, they waited to offer an electronic viewfinder till the technology was advanced enough, boot-time, thermal-management, bugs and they have their own production in a high-wage-country - it's a different business for a different market - I somehow doubt that ARRI will become a prosumer-player with a 50k€-cam...

I had some trouble with playing the first Alexa-clip, so here's the direct link: http://www.arridigital.com/sites/default/f...World%20Cup.mp4 What about a 1080p-clip with 1:1 comparison S16 + 3k->1080p DI and S35 + 6k->1080p DI with Arri Relativity before somebody else does questionable comparisons again, I assume Arri knows how to use the full potencial of it's equipment best... - would at least give an idea how HD-broadcast/Blu-Ray compares ? To me it looks nice but still just like video, although hard to tell from such a small video...

Just take a look at www.arridigital.com - interesting new infos. I'm just not sure about their new style of marketing with simplifiaction of technical facts (like giving DR one number) & large, stylish images - is it really a consumer product at 50k€? Why Fuji-lenses for budget work with ARRI-label?

I would have voted for Inglorious Basterds as well, but Mr. Richardson already has two Academy Awards... :lol: I personally think Avatar was a major achievement in movie history. Don't believe that? Well, just look at all the CGI-crap made by legendary filmmakers the whole decade before... I don't think that it would have worked without decent cinematography and CG-artists can create great images but they can't use light and camera positions the way a skilled cinematographer can do. Wasn't this the point of the Avatar-technology? Make CGI just another tool on set without having to control the camera with a mouse? But I seriously question how much of this work was actually done by Mr. Fiore himself, and what was done by Mr. Pace and Mr Cameron himself. Anyway, I thinnk Mr. Fiore has proved his skills before. "This is why I don't like the Academy. Avatar had to win a lot of awards because it is the most successful movie of all time (ignoring inflation)." Why? The Academy isn't the business people from Hollywood, it's the artists (or the great majority of them). They'll have to consider thousands of contributions pre-selected by the studios and their final decision never will be the most "avantgarde" one - that's what the film festivals and small jurys are for. But I don't seriously think that the studios can really "push" one crap movie by offering free screenings with lobster and Champagne... But the winners are selected not only by cinematographers, but also by costume designers and actors as well, just like cinematographers vote for acting performances - I doubt that they can always see and appreciate the effort of other crafts as well as their own - they always tend to select the most "spectacular" one.

Take a look at the "4k+" document from ARRI on their site. It's not only about resolution in release prints, but on site 17/18 you see direct comparisons and why 2k is not enough.

I can relate to the feelings of those who mistrust RED, not so much the camera itself but the marketing and company image. Basically, there are two entirely different business concepts: 1.) Companies which are ruled by engineers and craftsmen. Money is just means to an end to design/manufacture products. 2.) Companies which are ruled by business men. The product is just means to an end to make money. That might sound strange and overly simplified at first and well, it is - many companies are (or have become) mixtures of both categories. Arnold&Richter is a typical "hidden champion" (family business, highly specialized, very different from shareholder-value-driven companies). They don't even try to enter a tempting mass-market, they don't have production-sites in low-wage-countries, they are very long-sighted and careful. Panavision seems to be quite similar, they even rely on their unique structure (just renting equipment instead of selling it). RED is entirely different. A closed company we know very little about. Their marketing is using new communication technology brilliantly. ARRI and Panavision aren't used to this, presenting themselves on the internet, in social networks - they propably didn't even knew that you could sell a cine-style camera on the internet! But there are a few hard facts and evidence that RED belongs into category 2.) and has to be handled with utmost care: - the company was found by a brilliant business-man who made sunglasses, although I have to admit that creating a completely new market (prosumer cams with Super35-sensors) is uncommon for regular business people. - their marketing claims. RED is better than film or any other digital camera - that was said before they released it. RED is 4k, 2 times as much as "ol' industry" cameras, it's going to have 15 stops of DR (then it was 13, then 11, with M-X it's 13 stops - no, wait ARRI claimed 13 stops, so it's 13,5 stops and monstro will have 15 stops, again)! Handling a complex technical topic like this and treating the customers like stupid is clearly a sign for category 2.) Have you ever asked a sensor designer what extreme challenge it means to achieve 2 stops more useful DR? - The whole 4k-thing is based on the illusion that it's is better than all the 1080p/2k-stuff available, that it's finally beyond film, that it's a major breakthrough in technology The truth is: 4k is easy to do with the pixel count of regular pixel-pitch sensors in Super35-size. They nearly all have 6MP-12MP but only one company (well DALSA started it on a different level somehow) screamed 4k! We know that Sony (category 2.) tried Panavision (category 1.) to convince to squeeze 4k out of their sensor as well. They decided against it. Why the hell did they do that? It's not a lie, the pixel count is sufficient for 4k, somehow... It's because engineers won over marketing - do you have any idea how much less problems we would have in our world if this would happen more often?! RED not only decided for 4k, but because they rather went with interpolated 4k than true 1080p/2k (with proven workflows) they have to use heavy compression (1:8-1:12?). But hey, it's 4k and we have new codecs, RED-ray will come soon and whose idea was it to record data on a HDD (wasn't it a standard 2,5" USB external with a nice RED logo on it?)?... - they don't do much more than marketing and selling the equipment (how many employees do they have?) and they don't want to admit it. That's a major difference in comparison to ARRI & Panavision - these are manufacturers, RED is a brand, just like Nike or Hugo Boss. That's a little bit hard to understand for people who haven't worked in production, living in a globalized world, love their Foxconn-made Apple, far from "real men have fabs". But RED buys components or whole products, put their name on it and sell it again. This became noticeable when they sold their "RED" 18-50 or 300mm lenses which were made by Sigma (not even special designs!). ARRI & Panavision uses suppliers as well but they are truthful about them and they are usually specialists as well (both, ELCAN and Zeiss operate on an entirely different level in comparison to Sigma - a company which never manufactured professional lenses). The RED One is "made in Singapore", it's not even assembled by RED. I've worked in a German company which operated in Singapore as well. Nice people, impressive skyline - but not a location for high-quality production! But it's cheap... They don't have an education system for technical jobs like in Germany (the US don't have it as well, which makes craftsmanship tricky, but I suspect Panavision does it themselves like in the military business) and this work is mostly done by guest workers for very low wages and social standards. It's beyond China or Vietnam - but it's still no comparison the the sites of ARRI or Panavision! I'm really sensitive and picky about this topic, I'm an mechanical engineer born into a family of craftsmen - it's the backbone of our society and of quality! When somebody manufactures their products by OEMs in "accidentally" low-wage-countries they do it for a reason: cuttings costs at any cost, period! RED can make nice images, I'm sure. Students can do a lot with it instead of relying on camcorders with tiny sensors. But a professional tool? You can make professional images with a rebel 2ti for 600$ instead of using a 1dMkIV (nearly 10 times as expensive) - you just have to use the same lenses and professional lighting - it will basically look the same. So the MkIV is obsolete? No, it's the professional choice for many reasons. Would have ARRI offered a 50k€-EVF-version of their Alexa without RED? What are Zeiss compact primes good for (with designs never intended for cinematography)? I'm not sure. Is this a good thing (the whole excitement RED brought to the market)? Maybe, but we have to be really, really careful! ARRI claims "3,5k" in their technical specs - why do they do that? It hasn't reached the development (it's just statement in a brochure right now - they didn't choose a smaller pixel-pitch for "more k"), yet - but for how long if customers first ask "How much k"? You're operating in a wonderful market with wonderful companies which actually listen to your demands, not the ones from their shareholders! What a luxury! Real, professional tools! Don't take that for granted! I have the feeling that this market slowly difts into the "marketing-era", just like the automotive industry or IT industry and RED plays a major role in it. My rant is over, for now ;-) I just wanted to summarize my thoughts and maybe it's helpful for others as well (after fighting the bad grammar :rolleyes: ).

That's true, but as I said, every larger sensor is stitched. I don't think you can physically "fuse" two sensors from entirely different places within a wafer (or even different wafers) that's why stitching doesn't reduce the problem of exponentionally rising costs. RED is buying the sensors from an unknown source, stitching is a very specific technology which are only a few fabs capable of (DALSA, Kodak, Sony, Canon and maybe Cypress? CMOS-based sensors could be manufactured by any halfway advanced fab around the globe) - let's see if their supplier is capable of delivering 6x17-sensors. But to my eyes, sensor size isn't the issue with RED... This film vs. digital-discussion might be boring and exhausting but when I see great artists affected by the digital hype, I cannot help to start it all over again because the very same arguments remain valid. :rolleyes:

Wafers have very large diameters, that's correct. It's mainly an economic thing for very high quantities, many high-end-fabs still use smaller 150mm-wafers suitable for smaller production numbers of high-quality sensors - it's not limiting the quality of the sensor itself. But the "stepping process" (I'm not sure about the correct English vocabulary) is made with smaller entities "projected" onto the wafer and creating the structure of the chip/sensor. This size is limited (especially by the optics) to about 20x30mm - larger sensors are made from one wafer but stitched from multiple "steps". The problems caused by stitching (I've seen images from MFDBs with visible "stitches") are accepted in the photographic world (just like dead photosites are mapped out in firmware), but professional digital cinematography is another story.

I'm sorry that I came up with that again, but I was just looking for some technical information on the ARRI Alexa (because I wish for some technology transfer into the photographic world) and several hundred results within the last week came up stating: "...will FINALLY kill film..."/"...end of celluloid..."... I look at the movies shot on film and I look on the recent work done with digital and wonder: why!? To cut the budget by 0,1%-0,5% by saving film stock? I think we should use/support the best technology and not the one which helps the sharholders of film studios and camera manufacturers by selling a new cam every 2 years...

To justify the effort for 4k resolution in post you need a source that is capable of "filling" these large amounts of data with "useful" information (few artifacts, high contrast beyond Nyquist-limit for 2k), otherwise it's better to stick with 2k and it's advantages in the first place. To achieve high-quality 4k data without adding unnecessary artifacts (especially alaising or at least moire) you have basically three different options: 1. 35mm-sized sensors with half the pixel-pitch of "2k"-cameras - the area of an otherwise unchanged photosite is therefore quartered, reducing sensitivity and DR by about 2 stops! And we just start to get decent DR with large photosites... 2. Large sensors - beyond the obvious reasons (cost, size, lenses, DoF) the production process of sensors becomes the limit. I think 20x30mm is the max. size given by the production equipment (and even Canon with their own equipment don't change that for their 24x36mm-sensors), otherwise you'll have to stitch multiple sensors - not a good idea for professional cinematography. 3. Three sensors - even if the added weight and cost (+new lenses) is not an issue, color rendition/accuracy (even more so than with regular filters for bayer sensors) is. But the beam-splitters are more efficient (you'll save about one stop in comparison to color filters) and you have three times the effective photosite-area. I don't think option 3 is very likely, industry much rather waits till sensor-technology improves and option 1 becomes viable - but certain companies much rather scream 4k/5k/6k to sell new cameras instead of working in favor of the needs of professional film production... But why think so complicated? What about using a 3k-sensor with large photosites, making 4 exposures with slightly changed positions to get 6k, using "HDR" by making two exposures to create a true 16bit-file and instead of using inaccurate (it's always a trade-off between transparancy and accuracy) color filters use LEDs. So you'll merge 24 (!) digital images in one pristine 16bit oversampled 4k-image - hmm, that would make sense, I think it exists, I think it even got an Academy Award (not given by actors and costume designers but cinematographers/engineers) but I forgot it's name... :P What about using it to make new digital masters from Alien3-Panic Room and show them to Mr. Fincher? Does he really prefer the output of Zodiac/Button? You can even use the most robust, reliable and cheapest cameras, "the look" is not so much dictated by the camera but the artist and if you want to, you can even put a little 1080p-single-sensor camera into the viewfinder if you want "HD" on set and if you don't like grain, you can make it just as unnoticeable as digital noise. Isn't 2010-technology great? Why stick with cameras never designed for the big screen and limit your artistic skills (Mr. Fincher is a better artist than I will ever be) by technology? Oh well, he cannot afford the film stock in these rough times.... :blink: I think digital cinema cameras will have their time but right now, we should mix technologies to achieve the best possible quality - am I the only one who thinks it's strange that Mr Finchers 1992-2002-films have a higher IQ than his work from 2005/2007? Isn't that the wrong direction?