Are you sure you don\'t mean 3.5Mpixel? 3.5Kpixel would be about 230x500 resolution which probably doesn\'t cut it for professional cinematography, even at 60fps =0)

Just a question: how\'s the \"pixel count\" in this case calculated? I\'m guessing the camera does not have 3\'500 pixels in all, so what is the 3.5K? The width? Height?

Cinematographers speak a different language than we poor consumers do. ARRI lists the Alexa\'s \"sensor pixel count\" as 3.5K. In digital cinema terms this indicates an image that is 3500 pixels wide. At an aspect ratio of 16:9, this would indicate an image of about 6.2MP. ARRI says they chose 3.5K to provide enough oversampling to create a quality 2K final image. 2K is considered comparable to a 35mm film projection print.

I loved reading the article. Thank you.

For the ARRI ALEXA Camera Test \"World Cup\" with Behind the Scenes and Testimonials please visit : www.stargatestudios.net/channel

I don\'t think it will kill film at all. Unfortunately, despite the specifications and technical capabilities of this digital camera - it will still never convey the same emotion or feel that film does.

Hi, I was at the Alexa DCS presentation in San Francisco, CA 2 weeks ago where Arri presented this short among others. If I recall correctly, the camera was set to 800 ISO (which is the native ISO). We also saw some amazing night exterior footage at 1600 ISO, looked very clean even in the isolated blue channel. The pics must be available on the web pdf news at http://www.pdfok.com/arri-alexa I guess. But let\'s hope that we can still enjoy good quality movies shot on a film.

Sorry Andrew, that\'s exactly what they said about film based SLR cameras. Ten years from now, film will be dead and buried. Ultimately, digital has a much wider gamut of capabilities than analogue film, and any perceived analogue feel or \"warmth\" can be digitally placed so that even an expert can\'t tell.

@Jason Catterall
Film will probably be used less in 10 years, but saying it will die is quite a statement. There are still plenty of folks who use film, including amateurs and professionals.
In the professional photography area, few examples are (out of many): Chris Weeks, Ryan Muirhead and Damaso Reyes. As for cinema, there are plenty that still use it.
I don\'t know about \"warmth\", but I prefer the way analogue handles/renders highlights and shadows. Not saying film is better at it, but no matter how much things are \"placed digitally\", it never looks quite like film. No matter how much I slave away in PS/Lightroom or use programs like Silver Efex.

Come again.... Professionals shooting on 35mm film are merely nostalgic.
Professionals shooting on medium (lots) or large format (not a lot) have a reason to still use film.. but then again, it is a specialty niche. oh, my mum still uses a film camera, as she likes it, and it is cheaper than going and buying a new dSLR. that sort of amateur still uses film.... and as I said of the pros, the nostalgic kind...
Of course lits of cinematography is still using film, as digital equipment is borderline as good, with no real advantage, and higher cost (set-up) and directors like cutting rushes..... can\'t litter the floor with feet of digital duds.