Arri Statement on future

paulears said:
The trouble with Arri is that it doesn't stick out and shout 'use me' - it's nice solid kit, but they're just tools.
Click to expand...
The Skypanel was a huge hit when introduced and quickly became an industry standard. For the next few years, Arri owned the flat-panel space for higher end production work, as it had done with their HMI's for decades. Their curious refusal to come out with a newer version with better color rendition and built-in wireless DMX left the door open for other companies to step in (such as Creamsource with the Vortex). I think Arri was very, very successful in the lighting world for a good long run.
 
briandrys1 said:
There is usually more than one reason why the more expensive cameras are used. Build quality and high quality connections become increasingly important to the camera crew as the budget costs increase, the funders and producers also worry about reliably during a long shooting schedule. The result is that they are conservative regarding the main production cameras.

Netflix and other funders/commissioners have lists of approved cameras.
Click to expand...
The approved camera list for Netflix originals (they were the first to initiate this) was initially created around resolution--they allegedly wanted to ensure that if they were promising UHD to their consumers, the images had originated as true UHD and not upscaled internally as was the case with the middle generation of Alexas. There were some far more prosumer cameras that made it through the approval than Arri's offerings.

I've long been an Alexa fan and have never had pushback from a producer on my preference as they knew them to be reliable and recorded to a tried-and-true format that wouldn't create extra issues in post. So agreed, production is essentially conservative in this regard. When I started dipping into the Varicam in 2016 or so, there was a little resistance from time to time but once we had things sorted with post, it wasn't a problem.
 
CharlesPapert said:
I've long been an Alexa fan and have never had pushback from a producer on my preference as they knew them to be reliable and recorded to a tried-and-true format that wouldn't create extra issues in post. So agreed, production is essentially conservative in this regard. When I started dipping into the Varicam in 2016 or so, there was a little resistance from time to time but once we had things sorted with post, it wasn't a problem.
Click to expand...
I wonder nowadays how much of an issue any camera format is for post? Is there a post-production pipeline that for some reason can't deal with files from Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Arri, Red, Nikon, etc.?

I feel like we're at a point, and have been for awhile, where even smaller mirrorless cameras can shoot a 10 bit 4:2:2 file that has enough data to be plenty usable for a bit of post-production finessing.

Unless we're talking more about the ability of the file to really be pushed around hard in post-production. In which case, yeah, the Alexa has a better ability/latitude than most to cover for a lot of mistakes in a fast paced production environment.
 
This industry is infamous for people/superiors doing things a certain way, holding onto outdated corporate workflows, etc. even as technology rapidly changes.

Nowadays, there should be zero issues for almost everything and it's mostly about, "There are systems in place and this is how we do things around here."
 
The higher end cinema cameras offer more than 10bit 4.2.2, they can offer up to uncompressed RAW, for high-end video drama productions, 12 bit ProRes 4444 can be used, especially if VFX are part of the workflow. Arri now offers alternatives to the uncompressed ARRIRAW. Red have their own Redcode RAW, which offers a range of compressions.

The Alexa is liked because it's smooth handling of highlights, without clipping.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
From my beginning days of getting into this career I always aspired to shoot on Arri cameras. To me, getting to shoot on an Arri meant something. It stood for the highest quality, it meant you were serious about your craft, it was the same camera the "Hollywood guys" were shooting on.

When I finally got the opportunity to purchase a used Alexa Mini earlier this year it felt like I'd finally "arrived" in both my business and career.
Click to expand...
Nice one Dustin! To this day I've never shot on an Arri. I'll often work as a turnkey solution with fixed project fees and will regularly hire equipment, but have always refused to completely decimate all profits just to work with the brand. It's not like the camera line item itself is always the deal breaker. It's a 1st AC, Hi-5, innovativ cart, lenses, more heavy duty support, prep days etc. There's not really a lean version of the Arri experience. Of course things change once you reach the point where you can't afford to not shoot with Arri for whatever reason (results, reliability, workflow etc.) but it seems like this sentiment is disintegrating.

It's funny how we're seeing larger production/cinema cameras in the uncool corporate space and prosumer mirrorless/4Ds on big films. Yes, everything is good enough, but the implication that camera choice is no longer important, makes it a weak statement IMO. Sony dominating broadcast, you literally don't have a choice to work without an fx6 (generalising), DPs are seen as "precious" for only wanting to work with Arri/RED, with BM being a double edge sword of sceptics and people embracing their cameras.

I got my highest day rate of all time this year using a Canon r5 mark ii (not narrative work), so I think moving forward it's best to work on projects that value the medium more than the equipment!
CharlesPapert said:
The Skypanel was a huge hit when introduced and quickly became an industry standard. For the next few years, Arri owned the flat-panel space for higher end production work, as it had done with their HMI's for decades. Their curious refusal to come out with a newer version with better color rendition and built-in wireless DMX left the door open for other companies to step in (such as Creamsource with the Vortex). I think Arri was very, very successful in the lighting world for a good long run.
Click to expand...
For a long time I naively assumed Arri had something special in the pipeline but it's more likely they just had nothing at all. I was expecting Arri camera-esque product releases, reminding us why they're the best and could command such a high price tag. I still thought this way with the release of the orbiter, assuming big films would just make orbiter walls and grids etc. but by then there were too many other options, unlike during the skypanels reign. It's also crazy to think Arri had a remote phosphor skypanel, back when LEDs were still establishing themselves, one poor quality emitter at a time. I still have a BB&S Area 48 remote phosphor panel. Anyway, overall, it feels like any company in video production is destroyed if they're not pushing the hype, which is a complete clash of Arri's personality.
 
briandrys1 said:
The higher end cinema cameras offer more than 10bit 4.2.2, they can offer up to uncompressed RAW, for high-end video drama productions, 12 bit ProRes 4444 can be used, especially if VFX are part of the workflow. Arri now offers alternatives to the uncompressed ARRIRAW. Red have their own Redcode RAW, which offers a range of compressions.

The Alexa is liked because it's smooth handling of highlights, without clipping.
Click to expand...
I'd agree that the higher you go up in cinema camera pricing you tend to get better specs compared to lower end models. But the things you're describing like RAW or ProRes 4444 are available now even in most cheaper offerings.

I've often seen that a lot of high-end productions don't actually even want RAW due to a variety of reasons. They're perfectly content with ProRes out of Arri cameras, in fact, with ProRes being the default acquisition format normally.
 
DustinSchmidt said:
I've often seen that a lot of high-end productions don't actually even want RAW due to a variety of reasons. They're perfectly content with ProRes out of Arri cameras, in fact, with ProRes being the default acquisition format normally.
Click to expand...
That has been my experience. I am given project specs most of the time and it is literally never RAW. Some years ago I made a point of asking colorists how often they see RAW files, they said most of the time if a project was shot that way, the footage would have been transcoded to 4444 before the grade.

Some years ago I helped a friend on a short film. It was part of a series of shorts shot on a loaner package with an Alexa XT and Codex recorder. The Codex being generally thought of as recording RAW, I discovered that it also had the capability to record ProRes so I opted for the latter to make it easier in post, since the director was editing on her iMac and the files would require less hard drive space. This film had a shot that involved a bright pink slime oozing out of a prop at one point. During the production meeting, the director announced to the group that we were going to shoot to ProRes vs RAW. The production designer (who had directed one of the previous shorts in this group) raised an objection that the pink slime "wasn't going to look right if you don't shoot RAW". I had to stifle a laugh. Needless to say, it looked just fine in the footage, and the director later said that she was grateful to not have to deal with the extra steps and drive space of working with RAW files.
 
rob norton said:
Nice one Dustin! To this day I've never shot on an Arri. I'll often work as a turnkey solution with fixed project fees and will regularly hire equipment, but have always refused to completely decimate all profits just to work with the brand. It's not like the camera line item itself is always the deal breaker. It's a 1st AC, Hi-5, innovativ cart, lenses, more heavy duty support, prep days etc. There's not really a lean version of the Arri experience. Of course things change once you reach the point where you can't afford to not shoot with Arri for whatever reason (results, reliability, workflow etc.) but it seems like this sentiment is disintegrating.

It's funny how we're seeing larger production/cinema cameras in the uncool corporate space and prosumer mirrorless/4Ds on big films. Yes, everything is good enough, but the implication that camera choice is no longer important, makes it a weak statement IMO. Sony dominating broadcast, you literally don't have a choice to work without an fx6 (generalising), DPs are seen as "precious" for only wanting to work with Arri/RED, with BM being a double edge sword of sceptics and people embracing their cameras.

I got my highest day rate of all time this year using a Canon r5 mark ii (not narrative work), so I think moving forward it's best to work on projects that value the medium more than the equipment!
Click to expand...
Lots to agree with you here, but also a few personal insights.

I've actually not found that I need a 1st AC, Hi-5, prep days, etc. for working with the Mini. It actually depends more on the style of shoot I'm on. If it's more commercial based and the budget and shooting schedule allows for it then I'll certainly rig the camera up to operate in that way and get a 1st AC to help handle things.

But I've also shot quite a few corporate jobs on the Mini where it's just me and an assistant to help with lighting/grip. Instead of running a matte box I may just put a variable ND on the front of the lens. Instead of running a remote follow focus I'll just operate focus myself by hand, etc. It's completely doable in my opinion to run a Mini as a solo operator. So I actually DO think that there's a lean version of the Arri experience. It's just not really the default.

I completely agree with you that although everything is good enough, camera choice remains important. All things being equal, wouldn't we all rather shoot for the highest quality image acquisition that we can possibly get?

I've also had my fair share of projects this year where I made more money shooting on mirrorless. I'm always trying to optimize where the money goes in terms of expenses vs. profits, but I still haven't had any regrets from my Mini purchase thankfully.
 
briandrys1 said:
On a recent BBC natural history series, shot in Africa, I noticed they were using an Arri.
Click to expand...
I feel like Arri made a bit of a push with the recent Alexa35 Extreme upgrade to try and get more into the natural history space. The addition of the higher frame rates in the A35 Extreme lends itself more to that type of work, work that traditionally seems to have been more heavily dominated by RED cameras in the last several years.
 
@DustinSchmidt Hey Dustin. Just checked out your latest c50 YT video. Nice job. Personally, as you probably know, I'm not a fan of Canon's new super sharp/detailed cameras, but would love to see you compare it the with the c70. Happy new year!
 
briandrys1 said:
On a recent BBC natural history series, shot in Africa, I noticed they were using an Arri.
Click to expand...
ARRI are also pushing into areas that were never traditional stomping grounds for a cinema camera manufacturer. Like Multi-cam sports and entertainment coverage. One just has to look at their: "ARRI announces the ALEXA 35 Live - Multicam System, a complete solution for live entertainment productions." white paper released in April 2024. This ALEXA 35 Live system is being used pretty widely today. As is further evidenced by ARRI's new partnership with Australia's HELM group.

Chris Young

https://www.arri.com/resource/blob/...ces-alexa-35-live-multicam-system-en-data.pdf

https://www.arri.com/en/company/pre...nership-to-redefine-live-broadcast-production
 
FWIW, the AMIRA was a staple on NFL fields for like 10 years after it was first released. Not sure how it is now, but on TV I see a lot of different cameras in the broadcast (thought I saw a FX6 the other week).
 
NorBro said:
FWIW, the AMIRA was a staple on NFL fields for like 10 years after it was first released. Not sure how it is now, but on TV I see a lot of different cameras in the broadcast (thought I saw a FX6 the other week).
Click to expand...
NFL films has been a hallmark in sports cinematography for many years.
 
NorBro said:
FWIW, the AMIRA was a staple on NFL fields for like 10 years after it was first released. Not sure how it is now, but on TV I see a lot of different cameras in the broadcast (thought I saw a FX6 the other week).
Click to expand...
Walk through any Formula 1 Pits lane or grid walk, and you will see many FX6s on gimbals. F1 TV often use them on their PTCs in the pits. Our Premier League NRL rugby league games usually have two FX6 rigs running on gimbals with Steadicam type vests. With the operators mainly coving the end zones for dynamic close-ups of the touch-downs.

Chris Young
 
scorsesefan said:
@DustinSchmidt Hey Dustin. Just checked out your latest c50 YT video. Nice job. Personally, as you probably know, I'm not a fan of Canon's new super sharp/detailed cameras, but would love to see you compare it the with the c70. Happy new year!
Click to expand...
Thanks for checking it out! Unfortunately I don't have a C70 in my possession. But I do plan to do some testing alongside the R5C and C500 II. Happy New Year!
 
DustinSchmidt said:
So I actually DO think that there's a lean version of the Arri experience.
Click to expand...
You're right, I should've said arri and lower cost haven't gone hand in hand until recently. I was also thinking financially lean, since even a small 1-3 person crew shooting on Arri should have (you would hope) had a high price tag. I guess part of it historically was if the shoot had a budget for a mini/mini LF, it might've been sold on the basis that to get the most out of it required a collective team effort, and therefore easier to add crew members. Where as now, it seems like a popular model is get your hands on a mini LF, natural light, crew of 1-3 and call it a day.
 
rob norton said:
You're right, I should've said arri and lower cost haven't gone hand in hand until recently. I was also thinking financially lean, since even a small 1-3 person crew shooting on Arri should have (you would hope) had a high price tag. I guess part of it historically was if the shoot had a budget for a mini/mini LF, it might've been sold on the basis that to get the most out of it required a collective team effort, and therefore easier to add crew members. Where as now, it seems like a popular model is get your hands on a mini LF, natural light, crew of 1-3 and call it a day.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree it's definitely more of a recent thing. It would have been unfathomable for me to explore owning a Mini a few years ago. Prices have come down so much in the last several years that buying my Mini used was more akin to owner/operators buying C300 Mark I's or II's, or Sony F55's or F5's when those came out. It suddenly became an option.

It's definitely wild for me to see a lot of doc crews choosing to go out and shoot on the Mini LF with a team of 1-3 like you mentioned. I still think the C500 II is a much better doc camera than the Mini, and that comes from someone who owns both, but to your point, the Mini LF used to be a high-end movie camera only.

Although I know there's always been people out there pushing the envelope.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top