World's first side-by-side ARRI ALEXA and RED MysteriumX camera test

Posted In | Blog Categories: On set, Digital cameras, Compositing | Site Categories: 2D, Technology, Visual Effects

 

For our current film, Roland Emmerich's "Anonymous", a drama about Shakespeare (yes, you read this right. No destruction. No end of the world.), we just finished up three days of camera testing.

 

Not just any camera test, but the world's first side-by-side test of the new RED MysteriumX (which is the REDONE camera, with a brand new chip and a new software codec to go with it) and the ARRI ALEXA (which is a brand new camera, very different and way more compact than the current ARRI D-21). We were privileged to be provided by ARRI with a prototype of the camera, and by RED with one of the first delivery models of the Mysterium X.

 

Before I dive into the specifics, ladies and gentlemen, let me announce right here, on this blog, that     

 2010 IS THE YEAR THAT CELLULOID DIED.

Yes, all you physical-analog-film-lovers, I said it. Touch the smooth plasticky emulsion  one last time and relish the memory. Both these two digital cameras simply blow film out of the water. Period.

 

Daylight/Candlelight test

 

Mixed daylight and candlelight test

 

Now, to be honest, I wish the names of these two would be more celebratory for such an event (my guess is the "mysteriumX" was named by the creators of "Godzilla vs Mothra", and the "ALEXA" for somebody's girlfriend?). But that's beside the point.

 

The point is, both these cameras can do what you could not accomplish with any film stock, not in your wildest dreams. Here's how they work:

 

The RED and the ALEXA, while accomplishing approximately the same amazing feat of creating clean, VERY low noise, pictures in candlelight conditions, work in slightly different ways.

The RED still has a chip that's basically rated at 320 ASA (or more like 200 ASA practically, as many DPs told me), but you can underexpose it in extreme ways with only very little addition of noise.

For instance, we shot two stops under (equivalent of 800ASA) without any significant addition of noise.

3 stops under (1600 ASA!) is still absolutely feasible, with more noticeable noise, of course. Even 4-5 stops under (3200/6400 ASA) is not out of the question, if you use a good noise removal tool (we tested with ARRI's Relativity software and The Foundry's Furnace for Nuke) and are OK with loss of detail ion the blacks. But it's possible.

 

The ALEXA has a chip rated at 800ASA. But even with that starting point, it's possible to underexpose significantly with only little loss. We actually went so far to test 4 stops under, the equivalent of 12,800 ASA! And, while of course extreme, I would not be beyond saying it's usable for a certain type of shots (documentary style). Basically, I was absolutely blown away that we even saw ANYTHING on the footage.

 

We recorded the RED footage on CF cards, at a data rate of 42MB/sec (the highest data rate RED offers). The ARRI footage was recorded on CODEX portable machines. The CODEX records on little removable harddisc RAIDs with a capacity of up to 5 hours each. The RED records to their own RED RAW format, at 4480x1920 resolution, which is currently only supported via the redcineX (in beta) software, but is already also being implemented by other software packages, such as Digital Fusion and Baselight.While ARRI would not say what on-board recording solution they will show at NAB, in our test the ARRI output a 4:4:4 dual-HD-SDI stream at 1920x1080 resolution, which can be recorded by any HD recorder. The CODEX that we used, creates internally their own implementation of a JPG2000 file. During output via Ethernet or other means, it creates 10bit DPX files from the JPG2000s. In terms of file size, the Redraw 42 and JPG2000 are fairly similar. JPG2000 is a 1:4 compression, so about 2MB/frame. The Redraw comes to about 1.75MB/frame (at 24fps).

 

The DP for "Anonymous" is Anna Foerster. Anna started with Roland as DP for the miniature shoot of "Independence Day", and advanced to second unit director on many of his films, and is now also a director (she directed episodes of "Criminal Minds"). She prepared several lighting setups, one being a Vermeer-painting-like interior scene (pictured) and the other a greenscreen test setup, obviously of great importance to us. (attached are before-and-after pics of the greenscreen test).

 

At this point in time, I don't want to publish exact comparison details, because the ARRI ALEXA is a prototype camera. It will be shown at NAB and delivered in June this year. So not all the specs are finished yet. But I have to say, no matter what the final details will be - this is a damn fine camera, and the range of the chip is simply incredible. The RED Mysterium X is already shipping, and all I can say is - go out and test it for yourself, you'll be amazed.

So, it turns out that both cameras, in terms of performance of the chip, are very similar. And I'm not saying this for some bullshit political correctness reason, but because it's the truth. Since the ARRI is a prototype, and the RED software is still in beta, I don't want to go into the finer details that we found, because they can change at any point in time.

 

I've attached some pictures from the test shoot, a daylight/candlelight scene and a greenscreen shot (the raw, uncorrected footage and the keyed result). Do to the limitations of this blog format, these are just downrez'd JPGs, but even here you can see what I'm talking about. I will prepare links to high-rez files soon. The greenscreen footage of both cameras was very clean and - especially for 800 ASA, had very low grain/noise. While you still need post noise reduction to get a perfect key in hair details or the semi-transparent collar of the lady in the picture, we only had to apply very little NR, and it didn't create any visible softness in the picture.

 

 

"Raw" greenscreen image
"Raw" greenscreen image

 

Keyed image
Keyed image

 

 

 "Tracking Marc" will return next week: Shooting HDRIs for CG lighting and textures.







Comments


Film Stock is dead!? Says who? Try and keep some balance please.

Anonymous (not verified) | Tue, 12/07/2010 - 07:20 | Permalink

u r rite,if u can show me a link of ur new works created by 5D?

Anonymous (not verified) | Sun, 11/28/2010 - 14:53 | Permalink

@AlexanderG
Actually, Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean 4 is being shot on RED MX - in 3D.
So, who's the piece of shit now, eh dumb fuck?

Jack Frost (not verified) | Mon, 09/13/2010 - 22:43 | Permalink

I can't believe how boring you people are.

Anonymous (not verified) | Sat, 09/11/2010 - 17:55 | Permalink
Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 09/09/2010 - 10:28 | Permalink

This is a general comment:

Film just looks better, that's a fact.
Its true that digital technologies have become extremely good but so what! and why is there this comparison between the two formats let them run side by side and they will find their own way.

with regard to budget, if you are making a biggish movie the saving is minimal and not worth bothering about (especially when an actors chef,winnie, masseur and spring water flown in from fiji cost more than the daily film stock used).

Most people who shoot digitally, i have observed, lack the discipline of a traditional film maker.

Forget res just look at the pictures everybody gets so excited oh! 5k red 5k of what 5k of noisy blacks and clipped whites fabulous. good for cheap ads and pop corn tv etc, not so good for high end features although people are getting so used to watching small crappy compressed films on their lap tops the expectations are also lower. I think film making and the use of film will soon become a fine art like sculpture or painting.

since digital stills cameras became available on mass everybody who has one thinks they are a photographer, the same is happening with film, now everybody thinks they are cinematographers/directors.

In fact the opposite is true there are just a whole lot more bad photographs/films out there. On the plus side it has enabled the few talented individuals get a chance to shoot a film on a low budget (the cost factor becomes aparent on low budget ads , videos etc...)

Ask any descent colourist and they will tell you film is a better imaging medium.

Anyway, cameras don't make images people do and a good cinematographer/director will give you good looking pictures from any camera by utilizing its pros and cons intelligently and creatively.

I shot on a 5d rescently, not bad, but mainly due,I think, to the canon lenses.

j. west
cinematographer

red monkey (not verified) | Mon, 08/30/2010 - 12:37 | Permalink

I think it's probably better to say 2010 was the year film became an aesthetic decision not a technical one.

As long as the big directors and dp's want to shoot film, they will continue. Although they represent a small portion of all the material produced, it's a very influential one. On that level, the cost of film or the camera is small compared to the overwhelming costs of crew and talent. Talent will always be more expensive.

Digital at this point is just a producers medium. It allows the producer to sit in a black tent and see "what it will look like" where with film that privilege was held in the mind of the dp. The price reduction is an added bonus, because in many cases, it is NOT cheaper (although will in the future). HD cam tapes are expensive, DIT's are expensive. Recently, I actually priced out a shoot with 35mm and RED. 35mm was actually cheaper because I could get free camera crew for that weekend (guys who were sick of digital and wanted to just work with film again). Interesting case.

Although I think the support system will struggle to stay afloat for film (Kodak is not the hottest selling stock right now) I think in the end the death of film will be in education. Because digital is becoming the best "educational" tool. Schools are turning towards it. As such the next generation of filmmakers will be raised on EX1's, 7D's, and RED's. Sadly, they may not even know how to load a film magazine. With more and more directors and DP's coming from film school, they will eventually take the place of the Michael Bays and Speilbergs (who swear to shoot film forever). Digital will be their tool of choice. But that's quite away yet.

Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 06/23/2010 - 23:40 | Permalink

Until you digitize for post..

Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 06/17/2010 - 09:56 | Permalink

Post if a dumb fuck. Disney has BANNED any productions from using piece of shit RED.

Digital is still a sampled color space, Bayer, film is full color space ALL THE TIME.

AlexanderG (not verified) | Thu, 06/10/2010 - 19:06 | Permalink

Let's compromise...film is a zombie...!!!

yeah baby... (not verified) | Mon, 06/07/2010 - 21:32 | Permalink

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Use <!--pagebreak--> to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.