6 ms·
As a photographer I know next to nothing about film, let alone cinema. Hence the question, is ARRI gear really as good as people say, and as expensive?
by hef19898 3y ago
As a photographer I know next to nothing about film, let alone cinema. Hence the question, is ARRI gear really as good as people say, and as expensive?
- atoav 3y agoThe thing about ARRI is, yeah their gear is expensive, but it is just an incredible combination of good design and stellar engineering. Their cameras are surprisingly straightforward to use, definitely easier than a RED or Sony (with their "every-surface-needs-to-be-covered-in-buttons-but-few-are-where-you-would-expect-them"-mentality). Their light gear is just stellar. I have seen ARRI HMI lamps that took 40 years of beatings and still worked flawlessly. The thing is, sure ARRI is expensive, but depending on your production losing a day might be more expensive than buying a whole new camera. Generally my experience is that a lot of the price of high end gear goes towards reliability, this is true for most other fields of tech as well.
- hef19898 3y agoThanks! Totally get the point of price being relative. After all, if you use gear professionally, as in earning money with it, the calculation of cost is different. Edit: Nikon is generally doing a decent job on those "pro" aspects if cameras, ergonomics, buttons, reliability and so on. Should be interesting to see how this acquisition plays out.
- jorvi 3y ago> The thing is, sure ARRI is expensive, but depending on your production losing a day might be more expensive than buying a whole new camera. This is generally true when purchasing equipment for personnel. If you have to purchase three new €2500 family MacBooks because of a burst pipe, that’s mighty expensive. Even for a small IT company, that’s just half a month’s wage per developer. I know that with expensive camera gear we’re talking about €250 000 per camera or whatever, but you rent those.
- geodel 3y ago> Generally my experience is that a lot of the price of high end gear goes towards reliability, this is true for most other fields of tech as well. Great point. I have this in non-professional settings the first question people ask is why this stuff is so expensive. Because if things work with little bit of fidgeting that's good enough.
- ensignavenger 3y agoWhen folks talk about reliability of these cameras, what are we talking about? Like, the camera longevity, or ruggedness? Or like they reliably produce a consistent output, versus producing different results under the same conditions where one would expect consistency?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mschuster91 3y agoSpeaking for lighting: all of it. ARRI stuff is expensive AF but worth every penny if you have the need for it.
- staticautomatic 3y agoIs this different in some way from the still photo world where you have like Broncolor that’s unreasonably expensive and no one can explain why?
- atoav 3y agoIn my judgment ARRI fixtures are not unreasonably expensive. Yeah they are pricey, but you get what you pay for, the engineering, including the elctrical engineering is stellar, the reproducability amazing. Now whether you actually need those things is another question, but my opinion on ARRIs stuff is that it costs exactly what I would expect it to cost on that level of quality (and that isn't true for all manufacturers).
- mschuster91 3y agoIn the end it's reproducibility for both - you know that when you have a specific setup, it will look exactly the same.
- Auracle 3y agoBroncolor is expensive just because they're old and entrenched, and some people are always in the mindset that more expensive must equal better. If reliability is a concern, you can easily buy multiple Godox units of approximately the same specifications (or better) for the same price as one Broncolor.
- lanthade 3y agoI 100% agree on the correlation of price and reliability in the professional video world. My experience is in live event production and while Blackmagic has revolutionized the accessibility of high-quality production it does come with a non-dollar price. I've never had a Ross router, switcher, or other auxiliary gear go down during a show. I have experienced multiple show stopping failures of Blackmagic devices. I once was on a show where the BM router locked up fight before showtime. Doors were open and power cycling was not an option. All existing routes were passing signal just fine, it was just control that was gone. We just had to make do for the event, fortunately there were no critical audience facing changes that we needed. For some clients the savings are worth the risk. For others they absolutely are not. With live you get no chance to shoot it on another day or go back and fix it in post. If there's thousands of people outside the room watching you better make sure that signal chain is rock solid.
- hef19898 3y agoAfter spending my career in supply chain and logistics, I am now at the interface of design and support for complex systems. So, reliability, or rather the full Reliability-Availability-Maintainability-Testability-Supportability, RAMT(S), is really important for my work. It is quite fascinating, that besides the overall performance and capabilities of a system, pros care about RAMT a lot. Regardless of the field. Nice to see that confirmed, in yet another field I knew next to nothing about.
- julik 3y agoFWIW "every surface needs to be covered in buttons" is exactly how a Canon person™ once explained to me why they are not a Nikon person. So that checks out wrt this acquisition, at least.
- emilecantin 3y agoI'm a Nikon person™ because my Canon printer once refused to scan because it was out of yellow... When it came time to buy a DSLR I chose Nikon and honestly I haven't been disappointed.
- hef19898 3y agoThe only thing more hilarious than the pointless Canon vs. Nikon quabble are when you throw in Leica shooters into the mix.
- xattt 3y agoProbably reproducibility and consistency.
- Joeboy 3y agoIn terms of the image, I think a big advantage Arri cameras have is a patent on simultaneous dual gain sensors. Perhaps somebody will tell me I've misunderstood that though. Aside from that, I think a lot of what you pay for is reliability, support and general non-sketchiness, which are not areas where RED have a particularly good reputation.
- mtvkqn 3y agoARRI cameras have much better IR filters in front of the sensor. RED IR filters were horrible quality when we measured them, leading to worse image quality.
- erichocean 3y agoYup, precisely why comparing "stops" doesn't tell the whole story. The Bayer color array also makes an enormous difference (and is unique to each manufacturer). Good ones are NOT cheap to make.
- royjacobs 3y agoI worked with ARRI for a few years when they were working on the predecessor to the ARRI Alexa, called the D-20. That was already an awesome camera but they didn't really take it into production because they wanted to make it simpler, easier to use and basically "better". They could've shipped, but they waited multiple years because they wanted their flagship digital camera to live up to their reputation. It's extremely well-deserved.
- onebot 3y agoARRI has a specific look and almost perfect directly out of the camera. Compare it to Red or Sony Venice and you see that it is the most appealing. You can make other cameras look like it, but ARRI is just industry standard and produces amazing colors. Their sensor is just fantastic.
- klodolph 3y agoIs it the sensor? I though it was the processing.
- MaxPengwing 3y agoYes. But No. Red V-Raptor S35 XL has 16.5 stops of dynamic range with 250-12,800 ISO. ARRI Alexa 35 has 17 stops of range with 160-6400 ISO. Both use rolling shutters, both have native ISO of 800. Alexa has better low light noise reduction at higher ISO, but Alexa is sharper and has better dynamic range in low light since it uses 8K to 4K down sampling. The real difference is in the colour straight out of the chip and how the workflow is for DIT on set. THe major difference I think is that Arri is already easy to use and slots in to the Hollywood human knowledge base and workflows while RED was mostly used by indie filmmakers, documentarians, Youtubers, and Silicon valley people (if you work at Apple in the US you can buy RED cameras cheaply through company benefits). This pretty much created a different culture of what images should look like around the two cameras. an Alexa camera sets you back close to 80K and a fully equiped RED sets you back about 44K. So its easier to buy it and use it while hollywood rents it on the day for the shoots. You can get a RED to look like it was shot on Alexa and vice versa in post processing today, but the people who work with the different cameras have different cultures of what is "cinematic" image. btw this is a good comparison https://wolfcrow.com/red-v-raptor-s35-xl-vs-arri-alexa-35-which-makes-more-sense/ https://wolfcrow.com/red-v-raptor-s35-xl-vs-arri-alexa-35-wh...
- sebben 3y agoYou can’t compare the spec sheets. You need to look at the over and under tests. There is no camera close to the Alexa35 in dynamic range
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 3y agoYes, and it's worth every penny.