Arri's New Camera

[Eric Coughlin]

@Morgan: I don't think it's indoctrination to be "brainwashed" into thinking something is the best, when it actually is the best. Facts are facts. You're talking as if Arri cameras are inferior to the competition and they just get by with indoctrination, name recognition, etc., but if Arri cameras actually are the best cameras, then that has to be a large part of the reason they're the most commonly used for high end work. As Mitch said, Porsche isn't just a status symbol, they also have higher levels of quality than Toyota.

Now, I wouldn't expect Arri to maintain the best cameras for say one hundred years as in that amount of time there are so many variables, different companies competing, etc., but for now and the short term, they are the best and likely don't have to worry much about losing that in the short term. Clearly they have many years of experience, skilled engineers, the budget for creating new top of the line cameras, so as long as they maintain their quality, they can stay at the top.

If another company came out with a slightly better camera it may not make much headway because Arri still has the name, recognition, familiarity, etc., but if a company came out with a significantly better camera that had enough reason switch to, then the industry would likely switch to that.

If anything I could argue Red got as far as they did moreso with marketing than with the quality of their cameras. Consider for a moment that around five years ago they were getting quite popular in the high end film industry, have since made several new iterations and improvements to their cameras, but have greatly decreased in popularity. Meanwhile, Arri is still using the same 10 year old sensor and is number one. Which to me means, Red got by with good marketing until DPs eventually figured out that Reds were inferior in most ways to Arris, and then went back to shooting mostly Arri.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

The problem ARRI may face is that, with the streaming businesses so multi-tiered, a C500MKII and FX-9 would be more than enough for most low-to-mid budget productions and the above cameras' low light and AF performances would give it a leg up over the AC crewed sets. And, once someone gets used to Canon or Sony and purchases lots of EF or FE AF glass, the ecosystem begins to play a more important part. And then, even presuming the Alexa look stays superior, one begins to think that he can get that look in post since there's enough information/data in the files and only a pixel peeper might notice any difference in the final product.

And the budgets would be far more reasonable with C500MKII and FX-9 too.

Maybe for corporate work, but you all keep mentioning AF as if it's useful for narrative. I shot a feature using the C300 Mark II's AF (or pulling manually) with L-series lenses without an AC and another feature shooting with an Amira with manual focus cinema lenses with a 1st AC pulling focus. It's not really comparable. 95% of the time the 1st AC pulling focus is way better than relying on AF. AF greatly limits the type of shots you can achieve on Steadicam, for instance. Comments like these make me think you guys don't film actual movies. I'm not sure how much DLD has filmed movies, but Morgan has a feature film in his signature so I would think he'd better realize the current limitations of AF tech. Talking hypothetical future AF tech is just that, hypothetical, and not available in current cameras.

Back at the high end, I don't see Deakins thinking, "I'm going to ditch these optically beautiful Signature Primes or Master Primes so I can shoot on inferior optics of L-series AF lenses because AF is the bees knees and my focus puller is crap." High end cinema glass may get auto-focus in the future, but again, that's future talk and not current tech talk, and even then, it will be of limited use.

I'm a big fan of AF for run n gun b-roll types of shots where the shot in the final edit often only needs to last 3-5 seconds, but for longer narrative takes which need smooth focus transitions and pulls from different characters and objects, AF often becomes useless.

 

[morgan_moore]

@Morgan: I don't think it's indoctrination to be "brainwashed" into thinking something is the best, when it actually is the best. Facts are facts. You're talking as if Arri cameras are inferior to the competition and they just get by with indoctrination, name recognition, .

I think it is the job of students to work out which is the best given a store cupboard not full with one brand.

The students are also not aware of making a production make money and negotiating decent wages for themselves wages that might cover a slow patch. I saw a ramp of ex students running out of cash withing the first week of the current C17 situation.

Every production they should be saying, lets use my GH4 and ill keep the rental fee thanks. And if you dont buy that we are all going on strike as we all joined a union.

From the standpoint of the Gh4 (hacked Gh2) being the camera for the production other cameras should be justified.

Now I bloody get it and could go to a tutor and run DR tests, write an essay on the cost of cameras failure in harsh environments, doing the shoot again, and many other factors meaning I could probably get an Arri when I wanted one

The answer is not that Arri is the best, or the worst, it is that it is on occasion the most appropriate to the project or owners style.

--

On the Deakins thing (or Tarantino shooting 65mm),or whatever, clearly that top end or going for a specific feel of process..like my local 'Bait' being shot on 16 and processed in coffee*. I dont think Deakins counts in this argument.

My feeling is more of the Amazon Netflicks, Key and Peele that may move along to AF and faster multicam production.

*Bait (2017) was filmed by Jenkin on a 16mm 1978 Bolex camera. He developed the film himself introducing coffee, washing soda and vitamin C powder into the proces

 

[John Brawley]

Red got by with good marketing until DPs eventually figured out that Reds were inferior in most ways to Arris, and then went back to shooting mostly Arri.

I think more that RED had a captive market to themselves for a while. They were pretty much the only qualified camera for Netflix Originals and for other 4K streamers. DP's might not have CHOSEN RED, it's just presented as the only accepted option.

Now, there is more choice. And the choice is going elsewhere.

JB
(Happens elsewhere too. Sony shows expect the DP's to shoot Venice.)

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I think it is the job of students to work out which is the best given a store cupboard not full with one brand.

The students are also not aware of making a production make money and negotiating decent wages for themselves wages that might cover a slow patch. I saw a ramp of ex students running out of cash withing the first week of the current C17 situation.

Every production they should be saying, lets use my GH4 and ill keep the rental fee thanks. And if you dont buy that we are all going on strike as we all joined a union.

From the standpoint of the Gh4 (hacked Gh2) being the camera for the production other cameras should be justified.

Now I bloody get it and could go to a tutor and run DR tests, write an essay on the cost of cameras failure in harsh environments, doing the shoot again, and many other factors meaning I could probably get an Arri when I wanted one

The answer is not that Arri is the best, or the worst, it is that it is on occasion the most appropriate to the project or owners style.

To a limited extent. Firstly, not all schools can afford a full cupboard, as a Varicam35, Red Monstro, Venice, and C700 will set back a school's budget, and then they'd still likely have the issues of students fighting to use the Arri's and that $200k invest of other cameras just so students could perform tests being a waste of money. I mean, personally, if a top person in a field told me a particular tool is the best (say Roger Deakins saying Arri is best, or Joe Schmoe saying such as such drill is the best for drilling), then instead of wasting countless time testing a huge variety of cameras or drills or whatever, I could simply take the word of an experienced professional, and get right to learning how to do the actual job rather than wasting time testing.

A friend recently reached out to me saying he'd like to test his Blackmagic 6K with my Amira. I told him I'd rather spend that time making a short film, as I think making a short film would improve both of our useful skillsets more than doing a camera test of which we likely already know the results of (and can also go to Youtube to see what others have done with much less time investment).

I make great profits off of having expensive equipment to rent when I go out as a DP, so teaching students to use the gear they own and get rental rate from that, sure, good, but if they're a freelance DP, also teaching them to scale up to superior cameras to get a higher rental rate is good as well. And the superior camera will also do well for their reel so they can charge higher labor rates and get more clients, even if they missed out on a little GH5 rental profit. Not that they're really getting much opportunity to shoot on Arri, in which case, if it's a closer choice between them profiting off of their GH5 or the production renting a more expensive Panasonic S1, then perhaps stick with the GH5.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

I think more that RED had a captive market to themselves for a while. They were pretty much the only qualified camera for Netflix Originals and for other 4K streamers. DP's might not have CHOSEN RED, it's just presented as the only accepted option.

Now, there is more choice. And the choice is going elsewhere.

JB
(Happens elsewhere too. Sony shows expect the DP's to shoot Venice.)

I guess I was talking moreso before Netflix and 4K mandates were popular. If I have my dates right, Red digital cameras started in 2008, Arri in 2009. I think Netflix's 4K mandate came out around 2014. Say in 2012, The Hobbit was a big Red production, Arri still had a lot of movies going in the film to theater world at the time, but Red had a good amount of prominence. Now in 2020 there are still a good number of big movies not for Netflix shot in 3.4K ArriRAW, but Red seems to have lost a lot of it's foothold in the movies to theater world, as well as streaming. The Arri cameras haven't really gotten much better, but Red has been continually improving while loosing popularity, which must just mean that Arri was considerably better all along and it just took time for some DPs (or executives making camera choices) to figure that out.

 

[morgan_moore]

TRoger Deakins saying Arri is best, or Joe Schmoe saying such as such drill is the best for drilling

Mate we could go around all day, basically agreeing that arri make a good camera

Personally having been to (photo) school in the era of film and basically having done a heap of bracket and process and push pull process tests as part of my time served, then having graduated via an end of line leafax and hasselblad wire machines to (hand) colour processing, and scanning in my first job. Im unsuprisingly a fan of school involving some techincal time as you may have noted from my comments on the video some pages back.

 

[ahalpert]

A Porsche is an exacting high-performance machine for customers who care about the difference and it is far more than just a badge or status symbol. For those who do not care the Toyota offers a great value. But no one mistakes one for the other and each has its rightful place.

I say a Porsche is a status symbol because I doubt most of its owners push it to the limit of its performance or need to. (But I dunno, I've never driven one.)

For my friend who bought a Maserati, I'm pretty sure it was just to pick up chicks and massage his ego. Sure, the body and interior were beautiful, but not enough to justify the premium cost. Any engineering advantages were wasted on him. The most attractive thing about the car was the sticker price and what that said about the success of his YouTube channel (which later floundered and he ended up selling the car for a huge loss).

DPs make use of the Alexa's performance and design advantages, so it's not an accurate comparison. But there may come a day when the competition is on par.

As for Hasselblads dying without autofocus, it's not quite a fair comparison either. Even a high-end photog operates the camera without a focus puller and has a higher demand for accuracy without needing to transition focus within a shot.

 

[morgan_moore]

I say a Porsche is a status symbol because I doubt most of its owners push it to the limit of its performance or need to. (But I dunno, I've never driven one.)

For my friend who bought a Maserati, I'm pretty sure it was just to pick up chicks and massage his ego. Sure, the body and interior were beautiful, but not enough to justify the premium cost. Any engineering advantages were wasted on him. The most attractive thing about the car was the sticker price and what that said about the success of his YouTube channel (which later floundered and he ended up selling the car for a huge loss).

DPs make use of the Alexa's performance and design advantages, so it's not an accurate comparison. But there may come a day when the competition is on par.

As for Hasselblads dying without autofocus, it's not quite a fair comparison either. Even a high-end photog operates the camera without a focus puller and has a higher demand for accuracy without needing to transition focus within a shot.

Well I would say many do have an arri on a production as a jewel ego blaster - that could be the director or producer too.

The stills tog will not transition focus during the 1/500 of a second but the focus could be transitioning around that time be that a model doing her thing or a football star flying down the wing.

Again your top end snappers may like to be seen with a hasselblad or a contax or something Ive got a contax t2 that is apparently fashionable now!

==

If the motion camera is not in great focus then there is no value in shooting high res because loss of focus is loss of resolution.

One thing I noticed when exporing miss focus with my hasselblad was that once the file was downscaled to a typical delivery pitch then often misfocus would be hard to spot.

 

[ahalpert]

Right - but regarding focus accuracy - 4K video is still only 8MP and the subject is often moving. And often you're shooting S35 DOF. Just not typically the same demand of focus accuracy.

Yes, stills photographer need to keep a moving target in focus, which is why eye AF is so awesome. But they don't need to transition from focusing on the eye to the hand or somewhere else within a shot. It was raised earlier that AF can't pull off some if the transitions and nuances that a human can. (Personally, I think AF will become another tool in the AC's toolbox that can be turned on and off to handle challenging moments of shallow DOF or fast moving objects).

 

[John Brawley]

I guess I was talking moreso before Netflix and 4K mandates were popular. If I have my dates right, Red digital cameras started in 2008, Arri in 2009. I think Netflix's 4K mandate came out around 2014. Say in 2012, The Hobbit was a big Red production, Arri still had a lot of movies going in the film to theater world at the time, but Red had a good amount of prominence. Now in 2020 there are still a good number of big movies not for Netflix shot in 3.4K ArriRAW, but Red seems to have lost a lot of it's foothold in the movies to theater world, as well as streaming. The Arri cameras haven't really gotten much better, but Red has been continually improving while loosing popularity, which must just mean that Arri was considerably better all along and it just took time for some DPs (or executives making camera choices) to figure that out.

I think you're forgetting that Alexa in 2009 was a barely more than HD camera. The full height sensor variants and larger pixel sizes only came later, along with the Mini with - not so far from 4K as before specs.

Original Alexa was only 2.8K. And couldn't record RAW onboard and could only do ProRes.

Not that most in TV cared, the VAST MAJORITY of network TV drama went from 35mm film to Alexa ProRes @2K for often less than HD delivery. They didn't go via RED.

Alexa Mini showed up, mostly as a gimbal friendly answer to the RED that was already owning that market. BUT they made it better than the OG Alexa. All of sudden the sensor was 3.4K and had higher frame rates

I knew a lot of OG Alexa owners that were pissed about the smaller cheaper lighter camera that did more that instantly devalued their OG Alexa.

Amira too. The supposed Doco friendly version also had as higher pixel resolution than the OG Alexa.

Not that it mattered. Most non-marquee TV dramas, the vast majority of the 700-800 scripted dramas shows that get made each year have been shot Alexa and shot ProRes and deliver / finish to 1920. Fox still airs as 720 !!! They aren't even HD.

That's maybe only changing int he last year or two that I see, with cameras like Venice making RAW a bit easier. Alexa RAW remember is uncompressed and no TV drama wants uncompressed RAW. (Though I just did it on a HULU show that "demands" 4K except we shot with SXT so ????)

RED got the higher profile VFX tentpole movies where the use of the extra resolution makes total sense. And some shows their LOOK makes a lot of sense and the high resolution qualifies them for certain networks requirements.

JB

 

[DLD]

Maybe for corporate work, but you all keep mentioning AF as if it's useful for narrative...

Just like a gimbal, it's more useful for some things than for others. Also, do note that I never said that the high end feature/TV will be using the low-mid end cameras. What I will predict is that, some high end lenses will soon begin incorporating auto-focus capabilities - technically speaking, the sonar aided focus is almost there - as well the AC aided AF. Most of all, as the electronics keeps getting better and better, the differences between the ultra high end and the middle will be getting smaller and smaller. Which is why what SMM said about Hasselblad makes sense. Even on the high end, there's not much difference between the medium format $20,000-$40,000 100-150 MPX 16-bit Hassy and the $3,500 full frame 61 MPX A7RIV. And by the end of the year, there'll probably be a 75 MPX Canon/Nikon/Sony and any superiority of the ultra high end MF models will be rendered negligible.

So, you're free to think that this will never happen to ARRI. But, even taking the Alexa's lifespan - 2011-2020 - one can see how much the gap between the "consumer" and the "pro" has shrunk. And the whatever gap has remained will be closing narrower and narrower as time goes on and will be so minuscule that having a $100,000 camera won't deliver any better results than a $20,000 camera and those with a $100,000 camera will feel like they're spending their money on nothing.

PS. Difference between, let's say, a GT4 and Supra vs. a high vs. medium priced camera is the uniformity of purpose. And, considering that the 2021 Supra will be 3.5'ish in 0-60, the only advantage GT4 will keep is handling at higher speeds. ARRI's advantage is its image quality but that can be dialed in if shooting Raw on much lower priced cameras (and on the lower priced, consumer still primes to boot). Additionally, as has been mentioned, Canon and Sony have AF and the low light/hi ISO advantage. Both aid in the work flow, where hauling a truck full of lights and a bus full of gaffers may become an unnecessary expense.

PPS. The IQ gap between ARRI and its competitors may need a C500MKIII or IV to come out before it disappears but it will disappear at some point point for sure. For reference, in the 1980's, a Rolls Royce Silver Spur had a 227 HP engine. Now, you can get a Toyota Camry with a 305 HP engine. A modern Rolls Royce has, of course, even more power but not much of a driving advantage over an $80,000-$120,000 luxury sedan. And then, indeed, all you have left is the badge.

 

[Tamerlin]

RED got the higher profile VFX tentpole movies where the use of the extra resolution makes total sense. And some shows their LOOK makes a lot of sense and the high resolution qualifies them for certain networks requirements.

JB

The VFX films are still Red's bread and butter, but I think it was the malleability along with the resolution and compact size that got Red into so many markets, since until Red re-write its entire image processing pipeline, it didn't really have a look to speak of. I met several post folks who felt that while they could get perfectly fine results with Reds, it required more work than with the cameras that they preferred to use -- which were as often Panasonic as they were Arri.

I theorize that is what motivated Red to re-implement its image processing, while Sony was pretty up front about that when developing the Venice.

 

[morgan_moore]

..you all keep mentioning AF as if it's useful for narrative. I shot a feature using the C300 Mark II's AF (or pulling manually) with L-series lenses without an AC and another feature shooting with an Amira with manual focus cinema lenses with a 1st AC pulling focus. It's not really comparable. 95% of the time the 1st AC pulling focus is way better than relying on AF. AF greatly limits the type of shots you can achieve on Steadicam, for instance. Comments like these make me think you guys don't film actual movies. .

My film (I keep meaning to delete it from the sig!) was pretty poor cinamatography. It was a serious commercial venture but aimed at kids. Most of it I pulled on my nikkor 35-70 3.5

I think using my lessons from hasselblad and others.. AF is important because..

1) Often it is hard manually to get to the correct three inches.. I would often find myself on ears (not eyes) on the LF (645) camera on a mid composition. WHen downrezzed to HD nothing matters.. but at 4/6/8k, bigger than vista chip one needs incredible focus. and often dont have the location monitors to even see it.

Im not saying the current systems do the trick but I feel I need a nudge after my focussing manually efforts. Ill pick the foot, you pick the inch?

2) The other importance is on a gimbal/crane on low end commercial jobs remote focus is a big resource..

If I want remote focus I need the motor, which must be powered, and aligned to the geared lens
the focus motor which must be talking to the receivier
this must be powered by a full battery
I need a video transmitter to a remote monitor
which must be powered
I need a video receiver
which must be powered
cabled to a second monitor
which must be powered
and shaded from the sun

Which all takes a lot of 1st or 2nd a/c resource to keep up and running.. thats a lot of batteries and cables and widgets to go wrong, and 12v ptap to usb converters and if its all hung on a Movi thats more batteries and tuning and firmware and settings and different channels, and when it doesnt work its not an easy trouble shoot to walk through that lot.

..which really makes one want an A7 on a Ronin S with af turned on and the sony 16mm pancake - because the shot is usually a focus on the middle walkie anyway. Or in a middle world could push one towards a Canon, away from FS7, F5 or maybe even Arri.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

So, you're free to think that this will never happen to ARRI. But, even taking the Alexa's lifespan - 2011-2020 - one can see how much the gap between the "consumer" and the "pro" has shrunk. And the whatever gap has remained will be closing narrower and narrower as time goes on and will be so minuscule that having a $100,000 camera won't deliver any better results than a $20,000 camera and those with a $100,000 camera will feel like they're spending their money on nothing.

Well, like I said in my 100 year example, I imagine it will inevitably happen to Arri just on the basis that it's difficult for a company to remain at the top for a very long period of time. I'm just not seeing Arri being dethroned in say, the next five years, which is around the lifespan of a camera, and beyond that, who cares, because we're not making our camera choices now based on what will be popular in 10 years.

Aside from that, I don't quite see why you think the top end will stop innovating. I mean, I guess maybe it happened for stills to some degree such that the gap has closed between the cheap and expensive. There's more to improvement than just dynamic range, resolution, and image quality. I just feel like there will always be camera companies, like in any technological field, who keep innovating, improving, and offering the best quality products, and as such charge a premium for that. Features like post focusing, instant file transfer, clear one million ISO so you can shoot deep f-stops at night, more integration of high end audio pre-amps, wireless audio, and wireless video transmission, in smaller packages, and the list goes on and on. It just seems short sighted to be like, "This $20k camera does 6K RAW and looks as good as Alexa so therefore camera innovation is over." I'm just not seeing a future anywhere in the near term where there is not an expensive camera model at the top end that has the best features, quality, reliability, etc.

Back to integration, high end wireless video transmission, Lectro or Zaxcom quality wireless audio...this stuff has hardly gone down in price in years, unlike cameras. And if integration is part of the future, such as cameras like the Alexa SXT-W and Red Xeonomorph, this integration cannot be cheap unless the parts they're integrating also go down in price, and we haven't seen anything to indicate a huge upcoming drop in price in these items.

Still cameras on the other hand have no such need for as much integration.

 

[Tamerlin]

Hell, even Red can do that. Didn’t the Fs7 bring “burning in” and “LUT” to the masses?

Red was one of the pioneers of the non-destructive LUT based workflow. In fact, it's one of the things that drew a lot of post professionals toward Red for a long time. And Black Magic, because it's been paying attention and is quite happy to learn from what works for others, mimicked that while developing braw. I think that part was lost on a lot of Black Magic users, but it's still the case that Black Magic camera users can have their LUT cake and eat it, too... the same way that the high end workflows... well, work. I need another synonym.

 

[morgan_moore]

Features like post focusing, instant file transfer, clear one million ISO so you can shoot deep f-stops at night,

My theory is that some of these are so complex a small company (Arri) is not going to do them. 10k 1000,000 ISO is most likely to come from 60 mobile phone sensors stuck together with AF run from AI calculating distance from another 10 sensors spread about like the three camera iPhone but scaled up.

The danger is therefore from Samsung ? !

 

[Run&Gun]

I mean who walked into the C300 design meeting and went 'magnifico, slick, elegant, zehr gut, ya technic, wunderbar, klassic' ? no one. Just no one in Japan had the balls to tell thier boss it was sh_it

If I'm ever on your side of the pond, I'll buy you a beer.

 

[DLD]

... Aside from that, I don't quite see why you think the top end will stop innovating...

Actually, I said the opposite. Hasselblad is still innovating (sort of). Porsche's innovating (that Taycan is something). But is Rolls Royce Phantom really worth its half a million dollar tag over a similarly powered BMW X7 M50i at $115,000?

And your ISO 1,000,000 has been already achieved if you want to shoot infrared.

PS. There are rumors that Canon wants Sigma's involvement on the RF mount glass. I will speculate that Canon will do their own zooms, while hoping that Sigma can adapt their L-mount and cinema primes into the RF. One has to expect a pro series camera in RF within a year or so and my guess would be a C500 MKII based unit with a dual gain type sensor. And then you're pretty close to the best.

PPS. Car and Driver just tested the new Supra - 0-60 in 3.5 (preliminary) as expected and 388 on a dyno. At ~ $55,000. It may not be a GT4 copy but it's $50,000 cheaper.

 

[Mitch Gross]

The problem ARRI may face is that, with the streaming businesses so multi-tiered, a C500MKII and FX-9 would be more than enough for most low-to-mid budget productions and the above cameras' low light and AF performances would give it a leg up over the AC crewed sets. And, once someone gets used to Canon or Sony and purchases lots of EF or FE AF glass, the ecosystem begins to play a more important part. And then, even presuming the Alexa look stays superior, one begins to think that he can get that look in post since there's enough information/data in the files and only a pixel peeper might notice any difference in the final product.

And the budgets would be far more reasonable with C500MKII and FX-9 too.

This type of comparison has been true for some time. They are still different markets with different needs and the crossover will remain relatively marginal.