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


Dude. You're a turd!

Anonymous (not verified) | Sun, 03/21/2010 - 19:58 | Permalink
mweigert's picture

Sorry, but Sony pictures (the producer of the film) doesn't allow us to say which camera we're actually using. Both cameras would be a competitor to Sony's own F-35.

mweigert | Fri, 03/19/2010 - 23:59 | Permalink

Marc is that true that ARRI won?

Anonymous (not verified) | Thu, 03/18/2010 - 13:11 | Permalink

not sure what commercial productions you work on, butt i do about 20-25 days a month of which maybe 5-10 are with a digital camera of some sort. Film is on its way out, but for now its still the preferred method......it simply still looks better, ask any REAL and BUSY Telecine operator, not some guy with the software at home.

Anonymous (not verified) | Wed, 03/17/2010 - 05:35 | Permalink

"In ad production is it is only used in about 10% of commercial productions."
"Audio tape vs Digidesign Protools. Tape has infinite audio detail."

Check some of your facts...

xander (not verified) | Sat, 03/13/2010 - 19:11 | Permalink

Sorry, I was incorrect. Actually there ARE on topic & technical comments, in the older posts in the previous page. (At first I only saw this current page which is full of off topic bar talking about film vs digital, digital being "not significantly cost effective", web design, and so on.)

ha (not verified) | Fri, 03/12/2010 - 19:06 | Permalink

I guess you do not judge a camera from the look of the manufacturer's website, don't you? Even if it "looks like designed by a kid" to you. While I agree that Red's web art is a little childish, their technology is the very opposite. And anyway that's may be due to the founder's playful personality, or maybe it's the art department too powerful, I don't know, I don't care, as long as I can find information easily. They are free to make their website as fancy or silly as they want. A lot of companies do.

What's the problem if the new, kindly & largely anticipated models from the Red Company are not ready yet? The current Red One model is very available now and so has been for more than 2 years.

This thread is called "World's first side-by-side ARRI ALEXA and RED MysteriumX camera test", and is not very much about film or web design.
That's ok, never mind... but for the moment no one has commented on these cameras' resolution, dynamic range, sensitivity, data rate, ergonomics, whatever.

Wait a minute, I read that "some have told me they have yet to see a significant cost savings of red over film, especially the 3-perf format." What exactly do you mean? that film is a freeware? Or that digital is not "cost saving"? What does "significant" mean? If the cost of using a camera is 3-4 times the cost of the camera itself, I'd consider it quite significant in camera choice. Is 50-100000 dollars an unsignificant cost savings? I don't know, ask it to people in this time of crises and good luck. Well, 100000 dollars are better spent at throwing (many) script writers and directors back to primary school, surely, we may agree on this.

Film is very good medium, especially if big, but saying that digital - let alone Red - is not a significant cost saving compared to film, is laughable. Actually, cost saving is EXACTLY the main reason why digital is so fast expanding as an acquisition format.

Film is also bad for the environment, but I understand cinema people don't give a ffff about that.

ha (not verified) | Fri, 03/12/2010 - 18:49 | Permalink

the more directors and dps I talk to around the country, the more say they're sick of red. also, some have told me they have yet to see a significant cost savings of red over film, especially the 3-perf format. people have been claiming film is dead for 20 years.

kamraman (not verified) | Fri, 03/12/2010 - 07:06 | Permalink
mweigert's picture

You're right, Ariel. I neglected (or actually decided) not to talk about the archival process, since it is such a small market. It's a pretty expensive process that only bigger budget features (studio pics usually) can afford. But nevertheless it's true that there is currently no valid alternative to 35mm black and white stock archiving.

So, to be totally exact, I should have said "Celluloid is dead as an acquisition and distribution medium as a whole, and color film stock, but not black-and-white archival film stock".

Would have been too long of a title, though  :-) 

mweigert | Thu, 03/11/2010 - 00:28 | Permalink

I totally agree with the "critical mass theory" - but with a different approach:
With more and more theaters having digital projectors the mass market for film (print) stock will decline rapidly in the near future.

Given that fact you wouldn´t be able to buy negative stock even for LOTS of money then (because Kodak and Fuji cannot afford to serve the comparable small raw stock market) - the sad consequence is as Marc stated: Film is (or better: will be) dead soon.

And again of course quality is not the point: Digital will be far cheaper or even the only available media. Sad but true!

Look at the prices per kilo/mega/giga/terabyte: The laws of gravity apply here whereas film stock means labour. And labor costs money.

Finally I agree with ariel: We will most likely not be able to read our digital archives from today in 20 or so years from now. Ever tried to read the contents from a 5 1/2" floppy disk recently? Even if the information is still on the disk - you will hardly find a drive for that!

Maybe film is dead soon - but part of our cultural heritage archived as digital data will be gone as well.

Andreas Berkl, ARRI

Andreas Berkl (not verified) | Wed, 03/10/2010 - 13:31 | 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.