ARRI Orbiter | New Light

That's trick... And a beast. 33lbs.

And I bet expensive. If it's $5K or less, I'll be shocked. I'm guessing between $6k-$10K.
 
That song has been used for so many corporate intros/projects...sick light though. Their designs are really nice.
 
As far as I see, no Wifi app to control from your phone. Need a more complicated DMX setup, if I understand correctly.

I don't see a variable beam angle lens available, so you're stuck using a large variety of probably not cheap lenses which will takes up space in your kit.

33 lbs at 400w nominal, 500w peak.

The Hive 575-C is 550w, 5.5 lb head, a ballast which I can't find specs on (so lame and dishonest of the manufacture to hide that), but I'm going to guess at around 10-15 lbs. I guess in terms of form factor it depends on if you like a small and light head which can be mounted on a basic stand and easily moved around but requires more dealing with cables and such, or an all-in-one 33 lb head that needs beefier stands but less fussing about to set it up.
 
Last edited:
Eric,

I am with you at the start, but Arri ends up doing something none of the others can: be Arri.

For now, that means making the tough choice that are right, vs what they are afraid buyers want or don’t want... because it works.
 
I also find it a bit odd that they only release this one light with no mention of other sizes. It's basically an update to their LC line which has different sizes, and before that, the lineup of Tungsten Fresnels in various wattages and sizes. So logically speaking, it would only make sense for them to later come out with different sizes of this new lineup.

The Arri LC-10 is 43 lbs and 400w, so basically the same wattage but 10 lbs heavier. The Orbiter has various new features, but I feel like a lot of the features are just fluff. I personally don't see this as a huge upgrade over the LC-10. The nicest thing for me is that they shaved 10 lbs, as the LC series to me were always too heavy and expensive for the amount of light they put out.

And despite being Arri, the LC line never really took off like the Skypanels did. It'll be interesting to see if the Orbiter becomes mainstream.
 
Text links to my (preferred) Gaffer, & he was impressed enough to place a preorder with his Broker.
 
Last edited:
Eric Coughlin said:
I also find it a bit odd that they only release this one light with no mention of other sizes. It's basically an update to their LC line which has different sizes, and before that, the lineup of Tungsten Fresnels in various wattages and sizes. So logically speaking, it would only make sense for them to later come out with different sizes of this new lineup.

The Arri LC-10 is 43 lbs and 400w, so basically the same wattage but 10 lbs heavier. The Orbiter has various new features, but I feel like a lot of the features are just fluff. I personally don't see this as a huge upgrade over the LC-10. The nicest thing for me is that they shaved 10 lbs, as the LC series to me were always too heavy and expensive for the amount of light they put out.

And despite being Arri, the LC line never really took off like the Skypanels did. It'll be interesting to see if the Orbiter becomes mainstream.
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the comparison - Fresnel only vs. sort of like a PAR lens set, leko control, sphere/softbox attachements (surely there's a softbox for the l10c though i havent seen one)

It's roughly the same size as an Arri M18 (slightly bigger actually). They're pushing it with the weight. 3kg more than a skypanel. More than 15kg starts to become a two person job when sending it up on a stand.

I've been on set with the hive 200c and am not a fan at all. It's ridiculously front heavy, making adjustments a huge pain. Maybe the 575w will be different. I've mentioned before, IMO if it's my $10k to arri or $10k to what feels like a start up - the decision has already been made.

I don't see how these lights won't completely take off on film sets.
 
Last edited:
Fair enough. Hadn't really thought of the Orbiter as a Par, but I guess that makes sense.

Digging a quote from the Roger Deakins forum...

ClayKerri said:
In my personal experience, the main benefit to a par is that it is more efficient. A fresnel lens significantly reduces the power output of the head, where-as a par can be run with a narrow spot lens that gives you more punch. When you need every light bit of juice you can get on a budget (say an indie feature's night scene), a par can be a more effective tool. A fresnel has the benefit of never needing a lens case to be hauled around with it, so it is more expedient. On shows where time is more important than money (even if they're essentially the same thing), fresnels can be great tools to have.
Click to expand...

I'd be curious of opinions here on Fresnel vs. Par, when to use which, etc. If Fresnels are often preferred, and the LC line of Fresnels didn't take off, then why would the Orbiter, as a par, take off? I'm not disagreeing, as I suspect it will be a popular light; just asking questions.







And, let me try another comparison...

Arri-Orbiter.png


Apple-computer.png
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Fair enough. Hadn't really thought of the Orbiter as a Par, but I guess that makes sense.

Digging a quote from the Roger Deakins forum...



I'd be curious of opinions here on Fresnel vs. Par, when to use which, etc. If Fresnels are often preferred, and the LC line of Fresnels didn't take off, then why would the Orbiter, as a par, take off? I'm not disagreeing, as I suspect it will be a popular light; just asking questions.
Click to expand...

I actually don't see it as being a huge deal on set because the likely scenario is a DP will just take what they can get when pulled out of a lighting van/truck on a low budget short film for example.

I've used the ancient Arri 575w HMIs PARs regularly, they're amazing. PARs will probably always be more compact when on a stand. Total volume of equipment may vary though if you factor in the lens case. But if the only way you use a PAR is to fill a 4x4 frame or bounce then you can just keep a wide/medium lens in there without taking the lens set with you (leave in vehicle).

A bare Fresnel beam is "nicer" than a PAR so I'd go for Fresnel if I have the choice and am after hard light. Still, the Arri PARs I mentioned provide a really nice beam you can shape when compared with many LED lights (comparing with lights before this latest wave, which is lifting the standard dramatically).

My bet is arri opted against a variable beam angle attachment (for now) because it is just that tough to make a really pleasing Fresnel with LEDs.
 
In the marketing materials for the LC, it seemed to me that Arri was expecting the light to be used more for studios and installs rather than as a location light. In any case, I've never talked to somebody that actually liked the LC. I've also never seen an LED fresnel that actually works like a fresnel.

Based on my somewhat limited experience, the skypanel was showing up on every set and being used in ways that didn't make a whole lot of sense. Basically, in ways that a PAR would be traditionally used. So Arri gave us a PAR style light that will actually be more adaptable as long as you also rent all of the attachments. I can imagine this taking the place of a rental that would include a small HMI, Skypanel, and Leko. I can also imagine it taking up the same amount of space as all three lights and costing just as much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top