Arri Alexa 65 6K Camera

[AngelGraves13]

Arri has announced the Alexa 65, their 6.5K camera with a 65mm sensor. It's basically 3 Alexa sensors stitched together vertically, creating a 65mm sensor size.

The Alexa 65 will be rental ONLY.

Can't wait to see something shot with this camera. It's going to blow away anything else that we've seen.

http://www.arrirentalgroup.com/alexa65/

Technical Specifications:

65mm digital cinema camera
ARRI A3X CMOS Sensor
Aperture equivalent to 5-perf 65mm film
6560 x 3102 Resolution
54.12 x 25.58 mm Sensor size (active image area) Sensor image diagonal: 59.87 mm
ARRI XPL Mount (64 mm diameter)
LDS metadata
Same accessories as ALEXA XT cameras
Electronic Shutter 5° – 358°, adjustable in 1/10° incrrements 0.75 to 27 fps (upgrade to 60 fps planned for early 2015)
EI 160 to EI 3200. Base is EI 800
Dynamic Range greater than 14 stops
Shoots: Uncompressed ArriRAW

[saprano]

Interesting. I'll be watching closely to see what movies use this camera. I'm a film guy so I want to see how this compares.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by saprano

Interesting. I'll be watching closely to see what movies use this camera. I'm a film guy so I want to see how this compares.

Me too. If Skyfall can look good with the standard Alexa camera, this should be a massive improvement even if we don't get to see a 6K DI.

[ZoetMB]

The open gate (6560x3102) aspect ratio is 2.115:1. To obtain 2.4:1 spherical, the usable gate will be something like 6560 x 2733, which is just under 18MP.

Looks promising. Now imagine if someone could create a 6K digital projector to match.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by AngelGraves13

Arri has announced the Alexa 65, their 6.5K camera with a 65mm sensor....

Somebody already informed Geoff , Boz, etc. about it - https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...65#post9772734

Angel, ask your contact at EFILM ….https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...lm#post7609207 ) what he thinks about the Alexa 65 news.

P.S.
EFILM and celluloid acquisition motion picture plug for Sap… http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/fury/

[Penton-Man]

A few comments about its *current* capability -

#1. Onboard recording media only lasts 11 min. A Director like Clint Eastwood who only does 2 or 3 takes won’t feel intimidated by this camera….others notorious for liking to do multiple takes (David Fincher), I wonder.
#2. Frame rates: 20-27 fps means no high speed slow motion. Some viewers like to see their action and action figures in slo-mo.
#3. They need (their partner, Codex Digital) to develop compressed recording at 6K rez asap to help gain momentum for greater usage of this camera system.

[SillySauce]

I thought Arri was going to come out with a 4K Alexa camera, but this is awesome.

The Sony F65, Red camera/dragon sensor and this are amazing.

[SillySauce]

Originally Posted by saprano

Interesting. I'll be watching closely to see what movies use this camera. I'm a film guy so I want to see how this compares.

This camera is going to crush 35mm movies. Only Imax and 65mm films like "The Master" will hold up.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by SillySauce

This camera is going to crush 35mm movies. Only Imax and 65mm films like "The Master" will hold up.

"The Master" looked like crap when I saw it in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC. There's no way anyone would have known it was shot 65mm if they hadn't been told.

IMO, it looked far worse than Ron Howard's "Far and Away" (1992) and that film pretty much killed any hope for further 65mm shooting. The only 65mm after that was "Baraka" (1993), "Hamlet" (1996), "Samsara" (2012) and "The Master" (2012) (aside from IMAX origination).

And regardless of the merits of this camera, for theaters who are still projecting in 2K, I don't think the image is going to look any better. You're still going to get the "screen door effect" in projection. You might be able to tell the difference if they're using a 4K projector.

[SillySauce]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

"The Master" looked like crap when I saw it in 70mm at the Ziegfeld in NYC. There's no way anyone would have known it was shot 65mm if they hadn't been told.

IMO, it looked far worse than Ron Howard's "Far and Away" (1992) and that film pretty much killed any hope for further 65mm shooting. The only 65mm after that was "Baraka" (1993), "Hamlet" (1996), "Samsara" (2012) and "The Master" (2012) (aside from IMAX origination).

And regardless of the merits of this camera, for theaters who are still projecting in 2K, I don't think the image is going to look any better. You're still going to get the "screen door effect" in projection. You might be able to tell the difference if they're using a 4K projector.

Damn, you saw it in 70mm. Why did it look bad? How does the Netflix instant or bluray version of "The Master" compare? The bluray looked great to me. Easily one of the best looking blurays to me.

I've never seen the screen door effect with any projector. Some of you guy act like 4K cinema projectors are rare. Regal, AMC and Cinemark, which are the 3 biggest chains, all use either the Sony or Barco 4K projectors. A lot of smaller chains also use the Barco or Christie 4K DLP projectors.

Yes, I know all of that. How did Far and Away kill futher 65mm shooting?

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

A few comments about its *current* capability -

#1. Onboard recording media only lasts 11 min. A Director like Clint Eastwood who only does 2 or 3 takes won’t feel intimidated by this camera….others notorious for liking to do multiple takes (David Fincher), I wonder.
#2. Frame rates: 20-27 fps means no high speed slow motion. Some viewers like to see their action and action figures in slo-mo.
#3. They need (their partner, Codex Digital) to develop compressed recording at 6K rez asap to help gain momentum for greater usage of this camera system.

If people can use this camera with a ~10 min limit, it makes the complaints about the "limitations" of a 35mm system rather limited as that's what you get out of one reel of 35mm as well. I took my 35mm camera on my recent hiking trip around the North Shore region of Minnesota near the Canadian border and many of my friends mentioned that they don't like to be limited to 36 exposures and that film is a pain to use and carry around....

...and while they were talking, I just swapped canisters and kept on shooting. That was difficult to do!

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by SillySauce

Damn, you saw it in 70mm. Why did it look bad? How does the Netflix instant or bluray version of "The Master" compare? The bluray looked great to me. Easily one of the best looking blurays to me.

I've never seen the screen door effect with any projector. Some of you guy act like 4K cinema projectors are rare. Regal, AMC and Cinemark, which are the 3 biggest chains, all use either the Sony or Barco 4K projectors. A lot of smaller chains also use the Barco or Christie 4K DLP projectors.

Yes, I know all of that. How did Far and Away kill futher 65mm shooting?

When I saw "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in NYC, not only did it have end-to-end dirt (which is the fault of the lab or theatre, not the film's makers) but none of the shots had the sharpness and depth of other films that I've seen that were shot in 65mm. Films shot in 65mm generally jumped off the screen at you and had a three-dimensional quality. The visuals had no warmth to them.

I haven't seen "The Master" on BD. If it looks great there, it's certainly possible that the problem was the print. It may be that aside from IMAX 70mm, the labs don't know how to deal with 70mm anymore.

I used to think that I only saw the screen door effect when the background of a scene was white. But I was at a local art house the other day to see "The Drop" and it was obvious the entire time not just on the feature, but on all the trailers as well and it wasn't even a very large screen - probably well under 30 feet. I found it so annoying that I took my glasses off.

When audiences were polled after "Far and Away", no one really perceived that it looked better than a film shot in 35mm and blown-up to 70mm as was common practice back then. The fact that it wasn't reviewed well didn't help either. If "Far and Away" had been a big success, other directors would have rushed to shoot their films in 65mm. That never happened. Panavision created a new camera for that film and gave the process a new name: "Panavision Super70" as opposed to the previously used "70mm Super Panavision". As I wrote, aside from IMAX, only four films have been shot in 65mm since that time in the last 22 years and one of them, "Samsara", has never been shown in 70mm.

"Far and Away" netted $28.9 million in rentals. IMDB claims it grossed $58.8 million (including the 35mm showings). That translates to about $49 million in rentals and $100.1 million gross in 2014 dollars. The budget was estimated at $60 million ($102 million in 2014 dollars), so when you add marketing, the film lost substantial money. Probably one of Ron Howard's worst showings. I actually didn't think it was all that bad. When I saw it theatrically, I knew it wasn't going to be a classic, but I enjoyed it.

[BozQ]

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll say it here.
This Arri Alexa 65 has all the potential to beat the new IMAX Digital 3D Phantom 65 camera, in terms of image quality.

The camera sensor size is larger and the dynamic range is wider. Obviously, the IMAX 3D camera has customized 3D optics while the Alexa 65 is a 2D camera on its own. Still, I'm very eagerly looking forward to a production with this camera.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

When I saw "The Master" at the Ziegfeld in NYC, not only did it have end-to-end dirt (which is the fault of the lab or theatre, not the film's makers) but none of the shots had the sharpness and depth of other films that I've seen that were shot in 65mm. Films shot in 65mm generally jumped off the screen at you and had a three-dimensional quality. The visuals had no warmth to them.

I haven't seen "The Master" on BD. If it looks great there, it's certainly possible that the problem was the print. It may be that aside from IMAX 70mm, the labs don't know how to deal with 70mm anymore.

I used to think that I only saw the screen door effect when the background of a scene was white. But I was at a local art house the other day to see "The Drop" and it was obvious the entire time not just on the feature, but on all the trailers as well and it wasn't even a very large screen - probably well under 30 feet. I found it so annoying that I took my glasses off.

When audiences were polled after "Far and Away", no one really perceived that it looked better than a film shot in 35mm and blown-up to 70mm as was common practice back then. The fact that it wasn't reviewed well didn't help either. If "Far and Away" had been a big success, other directors would have rushed to shoot their films in 65mm. That never happened. Panavision created a new camera for that film and gave the process a new name: "Panavision Super70" as opposed to the previously used "70mm Super Panavision". As I wrote, aside from IMAX, only four films have been shot in 65mm since that time in the last 22 years and one of them, "Samsara", has never been shown in 70mm.

"Far and Away" netted $28.9 million in rentals. IMDB claims it grossed $58.8 million (including the 35mm showings). That translates to about $49 million in rentals and $100.1 million gross in 2014 dollars. The budget was estimated at $60 million ($102 million in 2014 dollars), so when you add marketing, the film lost substantial money. Probably one of Ron Howard's worst showings. I actually didn't think it was all that bad. When I saw it theatrically, I knew it wasn't going to be a classic, but I enjoyed it.

I saw The Master in 70mm at the Cinerama theater in Seattle. I wasn't a big fan of the projector they were using, not as good as the one they used to have, but the image still looked spectacular. My only complaint was with the obvious and annoying stuttering in the image with some pans (a limitation of the frame rate). The rest of it looked fantastic. The Blu-ray is also a must see for video quality.

I remember seeing Far and Away in theaters though only in 35mm. I liked the film but I wasn't what one would call a videophile at the time (I was probably 15 or so). I would love to see Universal put out a Blu-ray with a high resolution capture from the original 70mm negative. I bet that would look fantastic.

[Kris Deering]

Originally Posted by BozQ

I mentioned this in another thread, but I'll say it here.
This Arri Alexa 65 has all the potential to beat the new IMAX Digital 3D Phantom 65 camera, in terms of image quality.

The camera sensor size is larger and the dynamic range is wider. Obviously, the IMAX 3D camera has customized 3D optics while the Alexa 65 is a 2D camera on its own. Still, I'm very eagerly looking forward to a production with this camera.

The IMAX camera is pretty unimpressive from a 4K capture point of view, pretty old tech. Plus I LOVE that the Arri is 2D, anything to stop the 3D trend is fine with me. I hate what 3D has done to commercial cinema. From ruining 2D showings due to lazy projectionists that don't take their projectors to 2D mode to the horrible silver screens that look like crap with hot spotting, sparkles and obvious texturing, there is NOTHING I like about the 3D trend of Hollywood.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

..to the horrible silver screens that look like crap...

Great minds think alike. A feature film Director (Oblivion) and proponent of Blu-ray…

Director Joseph Kosinski Talks 'Oblivion' Blu-ray and DVD - YouTube

actually, recently expressed his displeasure with that very sort of silver screen installation/usage at the past SMPTE 2014 Symposium hosted by the HPA

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by Kris Deering

I would love to see Universal put out a Blu-ray with a high resolution capture from the original 70mm negative. I bet that would look fantastic.

The negative would be 65mm, not 70mm. I'm sure that's what you meant. Since this film wasn't all that popular, the original negative might actually be in decent shape.

[Clark Kent]

Good luck getting Universal to spend money on a new catalog transfer.

[singhcr]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

The negative would be 65mm, not 70mm. I'm sure that's what you meant. Since this film wasn't all that popular, the original negative might actually be in decent shape.

Yep. A lot of people don't understand that the camera negative is 65mm and prints are 70mm because of the extra 5mm of space on the film that's reserved for the magnetic sound tracks, but we are all learning as we go. I didn't realize this until recently and the format's commonly referred to as 70mm so I understand the confusion.

[Penton-Man]

Brain challenge:

The size difference between a 35mm/4perf Academy frame (22mm. wide) and a 65mm/5perf frame results in a x% increase in resolution for the 65.

x = what?