Film and Digital - a casual Facebook debate

Some days ago I posted on Facebook...

At approx Rs 13,000 per 400ft roll and exposing about 7 rolls (28 mins) a day for 60 days, feature films used to spend about 55 lakhs on film and processing alone.

Now, shooting digitally, and shooting even 60 mins a day for 60 days costs only Rs 6 lakhs for hard disks even if you make copies to two separate hard disks. 

I meet film producers every day who find that costly.

From the very interesting comments I got, I've made up a debate on film vs digital in the movie business

Film-maker friend Nayan Padrai commented...

"Wait till they convert in dollars" 

What he meant, I guess, is that these figures are different in the US. probably because film costs much less there than it does in India, while manpower costs are higher. Digital probably involves more people hence costs more.

Ashoka Holla, founder of Berserk Media and one who's been at the producer end, commented

"How I wish the difference between film vs Digital was so simple.."

My response to Ashoka...

"digital is only as simple as people make it. Or, it can be complicated if they wish it upon themselves. 

For the past year and a half, I run a company that specializes only in providing an adequate workflow for movies shot digitally. Disks, transfers, conversions, conform for DI, long term backup, archiving, Avid/FCP on hire everything digital. 

For a price, of course.

Have worked on over a dozen movies, more in the pipeline."

Sanjay Sami, arguably one of India's finest grips and one who's in the thick of it, has to 'shoulder the burden' of film or digital cameras more than anyone else…

"The most expensive component of a shooting day is time. When we were shooting Life of Pi, the Producer David Womark told me that the cost per MINUTE of production time was 7,000 US$. So ... does shooting time go faster with a film camera or Digital ? My guess is that film is faster …"

Ashoka responded (referring to my new business Post BlackBox)

"Hey congratulations..that sounds like a good business..My only point here is the difference is not only film vs Disks.. Disks, Transfers, Conversions, Image stability across systems and many many other intangibles( Shooting days, Discipline etc) are additional costs. Plus with digital you tend to shoot so much more that it takes more days in post to sort( & select) plus ofcourse Post Blackbox Costs as well. Yes Digital works out cheaper upfront but in totality with all the hidden costs, the gap is much smaller than what it appears"

Ashoka to Sanjay…

"Good point ..I love Digital but I have started loving film more after Digital came through. Content should dictate the choice of origination.. I would be disappointed if film does not exists any more for film makers to make that choice"

Sanjay...

"There is no financial reason to shoot digital over film. In many actual comparisons carried out by Fox Searchlight, Digital was found to be more expensive all told, including for some of the reasons mentioned by you. A lot of Producers buy into the hype surrounding the fact that hard drives are cheaper than film stock. If you choose digital over film it should be for other reasons, and there are a few."

My response...

"I've been doing this for a living for the past 18 months. Have done this math over and over again for all sizes of productions - Fukrey to Dhoom 3. And I assure you that if handled correctly, digital movie shooting in India costs a fraction of shooting film. 

As an editor I have exact numbers of cans exposed for the dozen or so films I've edited. Shot film. 

And as a DI supervisor I have the numbers for about 160+ (yes 160+) films whose cans came to me for DI. 

So, trust me, digital costs less to shoot than film even accounting for higher camera rental costs. 

In some movies I've worked on, digital shooting enabled a reduction and sometimes elimination of lights, some or even all of them. 

Since Feb 2012 I've been on digital shoot sets for nearly 300 days in 12 countries and 9 states of India. 

Digital works. But only if you hire the right people."

Ashoka…

"With due respect to ur knowledge and experience, I am afraid that is no argument. U can compromise on quality to save costs.Especially ur comment about no lights frightens me becos in the last one year I have seen several films shot digitally which compromised on lights and when u see the result on screen u cringe! Digital works for sure no doubt.But films works too. Both have their place under the sun.."

Sanjay Sami...

"Neil, your calculations are based on material costs. And you are right there. Hard drives are cheaper than film. That was not at all my point. I think there are some good reasons to shoot digital. Cost is not one of them.

Me…

"For a movie costing Rs 40-60 crores to the lead actor, film or digital makes little difference. 

For aspiring film makers with Stanley ka Dabba, Ship of Theseus, Fukrey and many such, in their heads, shooting digital is the only possibility. Digital is an enabling medium for many, who, with film would never be able to take the movie out of their head and on to a screen."

My response…

"Editors gave up film over 20 years ago. With Avid and FCP, editing went digital. Sound got recorded and edited digitally too. Then post went digital, then prints gave way to DCPs. Cinematography is the last thing to go digital. 

Let's move on. There's an easier world out there. Let's enjoy film-making. Let's not wish upon our youngsters the drudgery of film. If you were an editor in the 80s film was drudgery.

Like many editors of my age, we have actually held film and lived with it for months on end.  Nothing beats carrying large cans up stairs to a dingy editing room at Dadar. The smell of chemical in your nostrils all day and night like film smells. 

The whirr of the Steenbeck and a small flickering image on a screen. Or standing before a Movieola and watching an even smaller screen. The film was actually in your hand all day. And it was organic. Organic smells, and it's heavy.

White pencil to mark, a splicer to cut, and cello tape to join were editor's tools. Everything was always 'saved', no need to make backups, no worrying about anything getting 'corrupt'.

Then you cut the negative, the exact same film the cinematographer rolled. 

No one called themselves DoP back then. And after pack up they were in your BEST bus to Andheri. Now you're in the same jam outside Oberoi Mall. In separate cars."

Ashoka S Holla…

"how nostalgic? what u call drudgery was actually a lot of fun. Organic negatives were treated with so much care like its ur baby.Yes digital filmmaking presents a whole new opportunity to filmmakers ( see my quote in ET a couple of Weeks back). But filmmakers should be the one making choices and not post houses.

My response...

"about film-makers not post houses deciding, that I will agree with you all the way. About negatives and babies, not sure. I've had both."

Ashoka S Holla linked to an article on new age movie distribution

Content helps small-budget films script big success, 405 such films hit theatres in Jan-Jul

http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-08-10/news/41268120_1_film-industry-movies-malayalam

and on new directors working on shoestring budgets possible only because of digital 'filming' 

The YouTube way to fame in filmland

http://www.mxmindia.com/2013/07/the-youtube-way-to-fame-in-filmland/

Both are articles on the new wave of film makers and how Digital technology will create the next wave of content creation.However hope you will agree that still film has a huge role to play in storytelling. In some areas like archiving and even data storage Film is making a strong comeback across the globe.

Sanjay Sami on ease of use or lack thereof…

"post may be easier in digital, but that is CERTAINLY not true of the shooting process. Film is faster and simpler in almost all cases."

My response...

"Actually, 'real' film is when you shoot film, cut the neg, make a contact print from the original neg. Watch in a film projector. Like we've done from 1920s till 2000. That's film. 

We began to give that up after about 2003. 

In the world of DI (post 2003), film remained film only in the camera. After that it was all digital anyway. 

Shooting digital need not be a compromise in visual quality. And shooting film need not be all lyrical and poetic. Work on a Bhojpuri film shot on 35mm and see.

About movies shot digitally without lights... I have NDAs. 

So all I can say is wait and see. Actually when you watch it, you won't even know which shots were done without lights. It just looks so natural."

And so the debate goes on

Editing Arri Alexa files in an Avid Media Composer

I wrote about this a couple of year ago here...
http://neilsadwelkar.blogspot.in/2010/12/arri-alexa-avid-workflow.html

But now, in 2013, a lot has changed. There are plenty of Alexas in India, and many have RAW recorders - Codex and Gemini. Also, scores of films shot on Alexa have been released and a few have also had commercial success. 

Quite a lot of the workflow has been ironed out, but some holes remain. For a movie that will release tomorrow I did a fair bit of fire-fighting since the 'DIT' had somehow lost the source name while transcoding files for Avid. I really don't understand how these things happen.

Avid has a good set of resources on Arri Alexa workflows on the Avid site.
http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_US/how_to/en387379

As usual, Oliver Peters blog is linked to.

I've put together a more detailed Avid-specific workflow guide...

For a movie shot on Arri Alex as ProRes4444 2k or ArriRAW.

On set DIT converts Alexa ProRes4444 or ArriRAW media to Avid DNxHD36 .mxf files
On set sound mixer provides .wav files of recorded location sound.

DIT sends DNxHD36 .mxf files and .wav files to editor's assistant

Editor's assistant copies .mxf files to Avid Media files folder. 

Sound .wav files are imported into Avid into Audio bins - day wise
DNxHD36 files get populated into bins by dragging the .mdb file to a bin, or
DNxHD36 files get populated into bins by copying them from the media tool to bin

These are video master clips representing camera clips. These will not be renamed.

Editor's assistant then drags all these video master clips to a sequence.
Then he/she syncs each video file to the corresponding audio files. 
Syncing by eye-matching with the clap on screen, or by matching timecode if sound mixer has managed to match picture timecode and audio timecode.

From this sync sequence sub-clips are made to a new bin, one sub-clip per video clip.
These are auto synced to get new autosync sub-clips.
Autosync sub clips are renamed as per shots they represent.
Editor's assistant then makes scene wise bins and populates them with auto-sync sub-clips.

Editor's assistant then puts a watermark on a new layer in the sync sequence and exports this timeline for the director's viewing for dailies. Sometimes, the director visits the edit facility from time to time and views rushes with the Director so he can pass on notes and ideas.

On another system, the editor reviews the assistant editor's bins, builds a cut, and refines it.

Some editors I've met insist that the DIT does all the syncing, naming of clips, making bins and creating dailies - all this on set. Because that's how 'it's done in Hollywood'. No truth in that. Even in Hollywood, a DIT will only sync if TC is matched. And a DIT never names clips, makes bins etc. That's always a competent and non-lazy assistant editor's job. 

The DIT will move on to some other job, after a movie has been shot, but the editor and his/her assistant have to intimately know all the footage, camera files, master clips,  subclips etc since they have to hand over it all to the sound facility and later the DI facility. The DIT doesn't remain on the project till that time. The editor and his/her assistant do.

And by the way, for an Alexa shoot destined for theatrical release. Alexa shoots at 24fps. That is 24.000 fps not 23.976 fps. The Avid project is 1080p24 not 1080p23.976. 

There are a few countries who see TV at 29.97 fps, where 30 means 29.97, 50 means 59.94 and 24 means 23.976.

But In the hundred year history of cinema, 24 fps means 24.000 fps. So unless your film will only be seen on TV and in the US and nowhere else in the world, please do everything at 24fps for release in cinemas anywhere in the world, for prints on film or DCP - 24fps only.

The new Arri Alexa XT

The new Arri Alexa XT introduces built-in ArriRAW recording and an upgrade for existing Alexa owners.

On Arri's web site, there is a link on the new Alexa XT cameras.

http://www.arri.de/camera/digital_cameras/cameras/camera_details.html?product=253

And at Abel Cine, a short description.

http://blog.abelcine.com/2013/02/20/arri-announces-new-alexa-st-cameras/

The AlexaXT showing the XR module in-camera

and a XR 'magazine'

AlexaXT is a new range of cameras that provide ArriRAW recording within the camera itself. Using new magazines co-developed with Codex. 512 GB in one magazine, which can record about 55 mins ArriRAW. Download is with a new reader which has USB3 and one still will need to use the VFS software to get data off these magazines.

Existing Alexa owners can have their cameras upgraded to the AlexaXT with this XR module which replaces the ProRes card module. So if the camera could record ProRes, it will now be able to record ArriRAW. If you still wish to record ProRes, you need an adapter that permits using SxS cards.

The XR module with the XR adapter for SxS (top right)

and the XR module for ArriRAW (bottom right)

Existing Alexa owners who have invested in Codex ArriRAW recorders, will have a dilemma. Continuing with the Codex recorder, will not fetch any additional rent once the XT Alexas become common. And definitely after existing Alexas without Codex recorders upgrade to the Alexa XT.

Existing Alexa owners who have Gemini444 recorders are in a safer position. Their Alexa can do ProRes or Gemini ArriRAW depending on the production's budget. And they've had a lower expenditure to buy the Gemini which costed nearly half or less compared to the Codex Recorder.

The new Alexa XT or existing Alexas with the XT upgrade also provide high fps shooting as standard and not a priced option as earlier. 

These upgrades coming so soon after the release of the Alexa Studio will mean that anyone investing in any high-end digital movie camera will need to recover their investment in as short a period as possible since manufacturers will introduce newer cameras and recorders in as less as one to two years.

But for users it is a boon as they get access to better means of creating moving images at shorter intervals. Just like the F5 and F55 are an upgrade to the F65 at a lower price… but that's another story.

The complete description of features from Arri's web site...

• Refresh of ALEXA camera family
• ALEXA XT, ALEXA XT M, ALEXA XT Plus, ALEXA XT Studio
• XR Module for faster, more affordable ARRIRAW
• In-camera ARRIRAW up to 120 fps
• In-camera ProRes or DNxHD up to 120 fps*
• Fast 512 GB XR Capture Drives
• Proven, efficient Codex on-set or near-set workflows
• Less weight and easier working with internal NDs
• In-camera Filter Module IFM-1
• Internal filtration reduces reflections, weight and hassle
• New high-tech filters based on white-water optical glass
• Neutral color balance at all densities through absorptive IRND coating
• Accurate infrared cut off
• High image sharpness through precision polishing
• High contrast through anti-reflective multi-coating
• Available in 8 densities from ND 0.3 to ND 2.4
• True anamorphic with a 4:3 sensor
• 4:3 sensor on all XT models
• Anamorphic de-squeeze license included
• High speed license included
• Lens metadata for efficient VFX
• LDS PL Mount on all XT models
• Comfortable, flexible new viewfinder mounting
• Viewfinder Mounting Bracket VMB-3
• Strong and rigid construction
• 15 mm lightweight rods hold viewfinder mount
• Rods can take lens motors, matte boxes, follow focus etc.
• Special hard, low friction anodizing on all moving parts
• Built-in bubble level
• New Viewfinder Extension Bracket VEB-3 (separate accessory)
• New, sturdy VEB-3 design
• Viewfinder rests on camera through VEB-3 fold out arm
• Super silent XT Fan
• XT-spec upgrades for existing ALEXAs
• Separately available upgrades include: the XR Module, In-camera Filter Module IFM-1, Viewfinder Mounting Bracket VMB-3, Viewfinder Extension Bracket VEB-3, XT Fan and the anamorphic de-squeeze and high speed licenses.

Some more links...

Hollywood reporter

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/unfinished-arri-reveals-new-model-422641

Studio Daily

http://www.studiodaily.com/2013/02/arri-announces-new-alexa-xt-camera-line-up/

Creative Cow news

http://news.creativecow.net/story/870623

Alexa post - Log-C, LUTs, best practices

I've got three calls since morning from editors in prominent post houses - one with offices in LA, Vancouver, New York... yeah, yeah we know... and another with offices in Bandra, Andheri, Chennai, London… 

Complaining that Alexa footage looks 'milky and low contrast'.

I had written earlier about struggles in digital movie-making

http://neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com/2011/05/struggling-with-digital-movie-making.html

And on Arri Alexa Avid workflow

http://neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com/2010/12/arri-alexa-avid-workflow.html

Some details on the Alexa camera itself here…

http://neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com/2010/05/arri-alexa-digital-movie-camera.html

Here are some simple facts…

The Arri Alexa camera can shoot 'linear' (technically called Rec.709) which looks 'normal'. Or as LogC which looks 'milky and low contrast'.

LogC gives you more latitude. Which, depending on the calibre of the cinematographer, means, he can mess up the exposure and you fix it in post, or he can shoot amazingly and you can change the 'look' and better it in post.

On the set you can shoot LogC (milky) and yet monitor Rec709 (normal). So, many people get fooled into believing what's on the monitor is being recorded.

LogC need to be converted before you can see them normally.

Avid has no method of doing this logC-linear ('milky' to 'normal') conversion.

In FCP you can get Nick Shaw's plug-in for $ 30 (Rs 1500) and apply it to all clips.

But it is 8-bit and not for production.

Alternately you can download a LUT for the Log-C to Rec709 conversion from Arri's web site. Google 'Arri LUT generator' and you'll find it. And also Arri's excellent white paper on how it all works.

You can also use Resolve, or the free Resolve Lite to do this conversion. Download it for free from Blackmagic's web site, struggle with it for a few hours, and then get an expert to do it for you.

Best of all, if you're shooting for TV, and you really don't want to mess with this Log-C business, just shoot linear or Rec709.

About the data coming out of the camera (can't call it 'footage' any more)

Alexa shoots HD 1920x1080 on memory cards - called SxS cards.

or it can shoot '3k' to a Codex digital recorder.

or it can record out to as video to an HDCamSR VTR on to HDCamSR tape.

On memory card it shoots Quicktime movies in the Apple ProRes4444 format.

On the Codex it shoots ArriRAW files that have to be converted before you can edit them.

Copying all this data to WD, or Seagate or LaCie disks is a risk. A drive fails, you need to reshoot. Period. 

There are two kinds of people - those who have had to reshoot because of a hard disk failure, and those who have yet to reshoot because of a hard disk failure. Carry a piece of wood to knock on from time to time if you are the latter.

Or, hire someone to do data management for you. Whatever you decide, don't let the post house manage your data. And never leave your data on someone else's hard disk. It is vastly easier to browse, copy and use anyone's data in a post house's shared hard disk - than it used to be in the 'film and video tape' days.

For data storage on movies I'm currently working on - Canon7D, Red, or Alexa, TV or cinema or commercials - I'm currently using RAIDs from Sonnet, G-Tech, and Maxx. All are good. And safe. I also advice backing up to LTO tape for long term storage.

On backup for all this media, I've written about this a while ago, but the basics remain the same…

http://neilsadwelkar.blogspot.com/2009/12/backup-for-tapeless-media.html

In terms of disk space…

Shooting HD as ProRes4444 uses up about 140 GB per hour of shoot, 

ArriRAW does it at 10 GB per minute, or 600 GB per hour.

ArriRAW has more resolution and latitude than ProRes4444, but at a cost.

There's only one Codex recorder that can shoot ArriRAW, in India, so far.

If all this sounds complicated, it really is just a bit. If you'd like peace of mind, do all that I've recommended and you're safe. 

Mumbai CAS Day 1

The Cinematographer's combine CAS event got off this morning at a packed Imax theatre at Wadala. For a change the participants got there before time and the hall was packed with time to spare. I take this as a sign that digital is ready to be received. Or, that there was very little traffic in Mumbai this morning.

The first session was on the new Arri Alexa digital movie camera. I wrote about this camera on this blog a few weeks age and you can find it by looking through the links in the margin to the right. Or here.

The day began with a talk by Henning Radlein of Arri. I've been hearing Henning for over 5 years now. At various trade shows and demos, even a guided tour around Arri that he kindly gave me some years ago. And he delivers, with the manner of one of my professors of Classical Mechanics at Physics post-grad University class. Simple, concise and technically perfect.

There were some features that Henning spoke about that are not there in their brochure or web site. There was also a hands on demo of the Alexa, played out live on the big screen with a live camera. A rather good way of showing a device to a large audience.

Later we saw tests that Arri shot on an Alexa. These were shown as Digital, from the (presumably) Christie 2k projector. At 2k, or maybe 1080p24, I forgot to ask.

To my untrained eyes, the tests looked awesome. And I didn't find anyone who said anything derogatory about them, and most seemed suitably impressed. Until we saw the Indian tests later in the day.

The Indian tests were shot by two leading Cinematographers - Sudeep Chaterjee and Amit Roy. They had both shot some typical film scenes with props, actors and the like. And they both shot to film and Alexa and showed both one after another, as a film print.

I'm no cinematographer so a lot of the figures about shutter angle and aperture were just numbers to me. So I just saw it as one picture compared to another. From the general murmurings around the house, it seemed there were many who were doing the same.

One set of tests had a freeze frame in every shot with animated supers showing what seemed to be some kind of exposure level. I found that a trifle disturbing. I wonder, even among those who understood what those numbers meant, how many could retain that info. I think a set of stills on the Cinematographers Combine website would have been a better idea.

The tests were shown as a film print. On a film projector that was weaving and vibrating. So that was a bit jarring. So it was decided to see them as a digital print or DCP. One astute person in the audience asked for the Arri tests to be also shown right after the Indian tests.

For me that was an interesting watch. Seeing tests shot here, vs those shot by Arri both on a clean bright digital projector. What a vast difference in the sheer quality of images. Amazing. I don't mean to slam anyone here, but I think for quite a few persons in the audience the truth was before their eyes.

There was also a Q & A with some of those associated with the tests. Unfortunately, out of the two cinematographers who shot the local tests, only one could attend and answer tests on the shooting. And, as far as post was concerned, the colorist was absent too. And Ken, who filled in, did a reasonable job of providing info.

I found the workflow for the Alexa tests locally done to be... well, 'interesting'. At Reliance MediaWorks.

They scanned the film at 4k. On a Spirit 4k. Graded at 4k on a Baselight. and recorded back to film at 4k too.

The Alexa shot to SxS cards as ProRes 4444 as well as HDCamSR as 444HQ. In the logC colour space. But Reliance chose to capture the tape. This was captured to Clipster and exported out as uprezzed 4k DPX, for grading in Baselight.

So, the film images were presumably 4096x1744 pixels during scanning, grading and recording.

The Alexa images were shot at 1920x1080, cropped to 1920x817, Scaled up to 4096x1744, graded at that size, and recorded to film.

So, if my presumption is correct, we were shown native 4096x1744 film vs 1920x817 size digital images side by side but on film. All those who debate on 4k vs 2k for film DI need to take careful note of this in relation to what they saw on the screen this evening.

To be sure, I asked Henning whether the camera provided to CC for tests was capable of shooting ProRes. He said Yes. So, the decision to use the tape instead was taken by Reliance. Maybe because they don't have a Mac at Reliance with the latest FCS 3 which is needed to open ProRes 4444. Or maybe they feel tape is better.

I also checked with Henning if the Arri tests that we saw earlier were shot to HDCamSR or ProRes. He told me which were HDCamSR and which ProRes. He also explained me their workflow, which was radically simpler and arguably more edit friendly that the one Reliance adopted.

For me, the highlight of today was how different our shoot looked compared to the one done by Arri. Exactly why, is something I'll ponder about.

Later, there was a presentation from Sony on the SRW 9000 camcorder. Actually, calling that somehow puts it in the same league as an EX3. but not really. This is a digital movie camera with an HDCam SR recorder built in. The SRW 9000 is based the F23. And there will be a SRW 9000PL based on the F35.

The SRW9000 will have a memory card recording option in some months. This is a flash memory card that will be 1 Tb and record uncompressed. This memory card option will also work with the F23 and the F35. There is also a 4k upgrade path for the camera section. Which makes sense as this special 1 Tb cartridge will be capable of 5 Gbps.

Sony and Arri are adopting similar approaches, that of recording to a know medium and format. Easy to store, edit and manipulate. Both are good cameras and I wish there was a Alexa vs SRW 9000 comparison instead of film.

For us in India, unless post houses use the Direct to Edit Apple ProRes function of the Alexa, both will become HDCam SR cameras. So rentals will be similar. It will boil down to which camera cinematographers prefer.

Eventually the 1 Tb SR2.0 card will be introduced. And some may demand the raw recording capability of the Arri Alexa or uncompressed for the SRW 9000 over ProRes or HDCam SR. But both these approaches take up huge amounts of disk space so they might be non-starters in our context.
 

The rushes of an average Hindi movie, uncompressed (SR 2.0) or ArriRAW will take up 12-15 Terabytes disk space. I know exactly how hard it is to get someone to invest Rs 35,000 that it costs to get one secure hard disk to store just one ad film's a Red rushes, so asking for Rs 12-15 lakhs ofr a hard disk array for rushes... forget about it.

There was a very basic test of some shots with the SRW 9000 shot a couple of days ago. These were shot as S-log. The camera played the tests directly with and with a 'linearizing' LUT applied. I felt the test was playing at double speed. Meaning, they were shot 1080p25 or 1080p24 and the camera system was set up for 1080p50 or 1080p60.

If it was, then that shows how careful we need to get with these HD formats. 

By the way, where does Red figure in all this? It does. And I plan on doing a compare, very soon.

I've written on the Arri Alexa, SRW-9000, and SR 2.0. Check it out. And please, if anyone is using this info for any commercial gain, consider the donate or subscribe button.

Arri Alexa Digital Movie Camera

At IBC last year, Arri announced a new camera. A successor to the D21 - a digital camera to shoot movies with. That was Sept. 2009.

 

Last week at NAB (a large international post-production exhibition and conference at Las Vegas) Arri showed the camera. Its now called Alexa. Arri had a working prototype at their booth. Something you could touch and feel and shoot with and watch the output of, on a HD monitor.

The most important thing Arri have done with the Alexa is to sort out the production and post-production workflow in a manner that's simple - probably simpler than the Red. Whether this helps them sell well and better then Red, only time will tell. The pricing is not a bit higher than the Red, though.

In it's base configuration the Alexa shoots at a resolution of 3 k with a frame size of 3072x1728. This is downsized to HD at 1920x1080 and recorded to SxS memory cards as Apple ProRes422HQ or Apple ProRes4444. ProRes422HQ has a data rate of 145 Mbps while ProRes4444 has a data rate of 330 Mbps.

To put this into perspective, Panasonic D-5 tape stores video at 220 Mbps and Sony HDCamSR does 440 Mbps. So, in terms of data rate, and hence arguably, quality, the Alexa at ProRes4444 is somewhere between D-5 and HDCamSR.

This HD output is also available as a HD video signal which can be recorded to HD video tape like HDCam or HDCamSR. In fact, this is a safe way or working. ProRes4444 on SxS cards and the same HD video to HDCamSR tape. The tape becomes a backup.

For even higher quality and latitude, the Alexa also can record Arri RAW to a certified Arri T-link recorder. Like the Codex, S.two, or KG models of recorders. These recorders cost as much or more than the camera.

When the Alexa makes its way into India, the scenario might look like this...

The camera itself (pro set with DTE option) costs about Euros 52,500 (about Rs 40 lakhs incl. Customs Duty). And the recorder that can record Arri Raw costs another US$ 60,000 (about Rs 36 lakhs incl. Customs Duty).

The Arri Raw recorder records to hard disk about 15 Gb per min. So, if you are shooting a feature film of 120 mins at a shooting ratio of about 5:1, you need about 9000 Gb or 9 Tb space to store 10 hrs of Arri Raw rushes. At a shooting ratio of 10:1 which is what people do, when they shoot digital, you're looking at 18 Tb. To be safe you need to back this up in two sources - disk and LTO.

Now, going by what non-film cameras like the Red rent out for in India, my guess is that the Alexa will also rent at a premium. Meaning you will need to shell out two times or more per day for an Alexa what you would, for an Arri 435 film camera. This differential alone will make potential film-makers think twice about shooting digital.

Add to that the FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) factor around digital, it will take a while for someone to have the guts to do an entire mainstream film on a digital camera like the Alexa. As if that isn't enough, the sheer cost of providing safe secure storage for digital Arri Raw data, will make most producers balk at the idea.

At a conservative estimate, 8 Tb of safe secure RAID storage will cost at least Rs 1,20,000 for an 8 Tb RAID. That will add up to Rs. 2,40,000 for 16 Tb. This cost will need to be borne by the producer as well. Of course after the film is done, one can delete the unused rushes and then reuse the storage for forthcoming films. But the initial acquisition of a high quality disk storage will have to be made.

Many film-makers may settle for Apple ProRes4444 which takes up just 130 Gb per hour, or 1.3 Tb for 10 hours going up to 2.6 Tb for 20 hrs. And, for many purposes, ProRes4444 provides nearly all the bandwidth and sheer picture quality that Arri Raw would have given you, but at a fraction of the disk space and bother of file conversion.

At NAB, I was told, about 300 Alexa cameras were sold worldwide. In all probability, one or more people from india have bought one, or are considering one. So, come June, when the Alexa ships, one will see an Alexa somewhere in India, most likely in Mumbai.

For someone looking at an alternative to film, and who doesn't want to mess with the workflow of Red because his editor or cinematographer has heard bad things about it. And needs a camera that responds just like a film camera - the Arri Alexa is a good choice. If you have the budget and inclination for shooting Raw, and a recorder is available, then go with shooting Raw.

The complete Arri Alexa specs ...

There's, of course, more to the Alexa than just post-production convenience. Its latitude, dynamic range, 35mm sized sensor and compatibility with existing 35mm film lenses. Features that might appeal to the cinematographer and make the camera closer to a film camera. There isn't (yet) an optical viewfinder, but they may add one later in the year.
 

But for ease of use and simplicity, stick with shooting ProRes4444. The files will open and can be edited directly in FCP. And even in Avid Media Composer ver. 5.
After editing, these files will open directly in Smoke on a Mac for any effects work. Even windows apps like 3DStudio Max can use these files for any CGI work. For grading, the yet-to-be-released Resolve on Mac will be able to grade ProRes4444 files.

So there you have a clean and simple workflow. For shooting digitally for features and shorts. Even ad films and music videos.