Arri just announced three new cameras at IBC 2009 (International Broadcasting Conference) in Amsterdam and while, frankly, this means nothing to most of us, there is a technical difference between, say, a Panasonic HVX200 and these new cameras that is interesting to understand. More importantly, there's a philosophical difference between how you and I produce video and how Hollywood has made movies for past 50 years with Arri cameras. Let's start by looking at the gear.

The new "Blue" family of cameras from Arri all shoot to the same new ALEV III CMOS sensor. (Huh? Don't CMOS sensors have that slew issue? And only a single chip?) The sensor sports a 3.5K pixel count. (Huh?! But I thought cameras today had megapixels, not kilopixel counts?) The flagship Arri A-OV Plus shoots in a 4:3 screen aspect. (What is going on here? No 16:9? What about cinematic 2.4:1! This is crazy!)

Here's proof that just looking at the numbers can get you in trouble. First, when Arri reports a 3.5K pixel count, they are referring to a line of video, not the entire sensor. I have no idea why their literature calls this the "pixel count", but I guess DPs in Hollywood get it. It's like referring to the "2K" cinematic digital format (or now 4K or 8K) and is definitely a professional shiboleth that the industry priesthood uses to keep out the hoi polloi: lowly videographers talk about 1080p, while cinematographers chat about 2K. What's the technical difference between 1080p (1920 horizontal pixels) and 2K (2048 pixels)? About 128 pixels or 6% (which ends up 1920 pixels on HDTV or Blu-ray anyhow). Meh. More accurately and clearly, the ALEV III sensor has 2880x2160 pixels, which is over 6 megapixels (no, I still don't have any idea where "3.5K pixel count" comes from).

OK, so we have more pixels than we need for 2K, but only one sensor (and not three for RGB), which obviously needs a Bayer color filter. So, is the resolution really 2K? And while the camera records a digitally uncompressed signal (Yay!), doesn't the Bayer filter mean that you really get 4:2:2 color sampling? Well, yes and no. Pixels on a sensor don't magically turn into pixels on the screen (as should be obvious when thinking about megapixel sensors in today's consumer digital cameras). If you are curious about this, Arri has the best explanation of a Bayer color filter I've ever seen: What is the Bayer Mask?

One interesting benefit of the "low" pixel count (a third compared to the new Canon 7D, for example) is that it should be more sensitive to light, and that's exactly what Arri claims. "Superior sensitivity and wide dynamic range," something like +800 Exposure Index sensitivity and over 12 f-stops. I guess that's good and is roughly equivalent to ISO 400 film, for reference sake. Honestly, there's a lot of handwaving going on here, since none of the major standards bodies have come up with a fair way to assess sensitivity and account for noise and other factors (of which there are many). The really important part here is that the chip is a true 35mm sensor. And now one of the other mysteries should be  resolved: 35mm academy film has a 4:3 frame aspect ratio. Ah ha!

The final piece of the puzzle is revealed! The new Arri cameras emulate film as closely as possible. Cinematographers can grab the lenses they know and love and use them just as they always have. They can use traditional anamorphic glass that shoots 2.4:1 aspect to 4:3 media, for example, just as they always have. While most consumer cameras have a single, multi-purpose lens affixed to the front, Hollywood-class gear utilize glass that has been developed over a century of movie production. This has been one of the sticking points with the RED: While there's no question the RED is a fantastic camera, the fact that you couldn't just screw  venerable industry standard glass to the front was a big deal. This not only limited which lenses that could be used with the camera, (initially anyhow), but it also meant that cinematographers had to learn new lenses instead of just using their old standbys. If you really want "The Film Look," this is the way to go. Incredibly, you can even get a freakin' hand crank for the Arri Blue cameras for a genuine cinematic look the way it was meant to be, before all of that fancy electrical technology came along and, heck, berfore spring-wound cameras! "One hundred and one, One hundred and one, One hundred and one, One hundred and one..." 66 cranks per minute for authenticity, people!

Which brings us to the final philosophical difference between the new Arri Blue family of cameras and, say the Sony EX3 or the Canon 5D: price. Arri UItra Prime, Panavision or Zeiss lenses, for example, retail for... uh... well, they don't retail for anything. I mean, with enough money, you can buy anything you want, so let's say you could go out and buy a prime for $10,000 (realistic estimate). Who buys it? The Hollywood cinematographer? The producer? What do they do with the lens after the movie is over? Sell it on ebay? And there's the big difference: us lowly videographers own our gear, while Hollywood DPs only rent. So, what is the rental rate on a nice lens? $100/day is typical. Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's generally true and illustrates what's different about the gear we are talking about here.

And, finally, that brings me to perhaps the most eyebrow-raisingist part of this whole announcement by Arri at IBC. The entry level bare Arri A-EV starts at US$73,000. That's downright (relatively) cheap! This isn't industry-shattering news and us indy filmmakers will still go to rental houses to get the camera body, three or so lens and all the supporting equipment (yea, now we are easily talking six-figures), but still, it is fascinating. And the fact that there are Arri owners out there with a full set of primes really does change how the industry works.

References:
- Arri Introduces a New Family of Cameras