Copyright © 2012-2022 DE-filmFilme, Clips - kostenlos ansehen, online teilen
In Depth Cine
The Arri is just such a reliable workhorse of a camera, and at the end of the day, knowing you are going to reliably capture what you aimed for and aren’t fighting the technology to do it is the most important thing in my view.
Personal I prefer red and their colour science and the slightly higher resolution is what like.
@J.C. L. yup, and it makes me sad, but just because they look like they were filmed by a 9 year old with all the settings on auto, it’s not the tech’s fault… a bit like giving the same paint used by Michael Angelo to a toddler, the equipment is capable of greatness but the skill just isn’t there.
@Rich none of them are skilled then, because 99% of the recent digitally recorded movies, look like expensive tv shows, not stuff made for movie theaters.
@J.C. L. I can’t comment about content, but skilled grading can ensure that digital can hold up against chemical for all but the closest scrutiny so when a movie “looks digital” that’s a skill issue not a tech issue. Sure in the early days (mid 2000’s) digital stood out but tools have developed to “de-digital” footage now.
These new movies look like 💩 when compared to movies recorded on film, which on top of looking better, they are not woke.
Thanks, as a photographer who is a fan of cinematography, I always wondered why Arri was dominant. Almost seems to parallel how years ago DSLR’s were accepted by professionals because they mimicked the way film cameras worked.
@Pacifico Studios the eyeliece flickers. When the shutter is open you don't see anything. When its closed, it reflectd the image into the eyepiece. Pretty much you are watching the thing play out at 24fps
@Jose Ramirez - Oh, a mirror on the shutter. That makes more sense. But the shutter is revolving. Well, anyways, I guess you can make that work. I haven't shot film since that one time with my parents' 8 mm camera.
@Pacifico Studios actually most if not all film cinema cameras use a mirror on the shutter that goes to an optical viewfinder.
@Jose Ramirez - Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any motion picture camera ever used a mirror to direct images to the viewfinder like a DSLR. You never look down the lens on a film motion picture camera like you do on an SLR or DSLR. But now, you get to see the image off the image sensor transmitted to a high-resolution monitor, and that's at least as good.
@Pacifico Studios I think what he’s saying is that in terms of the experience, the “feel” you can’t beat a mirrored system. Your eyes are better than any sensor. But in terms of accuracy, the EVF will never be matched.
RED gets the headlines over fancy specs (4K, 6K, 8K) but Arri seems more practical and way less buggy. I've read about some DoPs preferring Sony cameras for their colour, which intrigued me.
@Florianski _ Completely agree, the A7S3 is pretty good for skin, funny because I had a FS700 and that is about 20 years old and shot some of the nicest IQ and skin. So whatever processing they where doing from when they dropped the A7S mark I, until recently, well it looked like hot shit.
@Spin City no, i have never shot on these cameras because im a hobbyist. But let me tell you, sony fixed the green ungly skin tones in their latest couple cameras and their colours are pretty good now. And there are LUTs for the a7s III to make the colours match Arri colours which work very good. I would bet my money that you wouldnt be able to tell the difference in a blind test between a shot on arri and a shot on the a7s III colourmatched to the arri. I've seen mixed shots between the a7sIII and an alexa in professional productions and they look virtually identical. For my work the komodo or something similar would simply be the wrong tool. I need something small and portable and with a stabilized sensor.
Those who prefer Sony color over Arri need to have their eyes examined for colorblind issues.
In my feeling RED was far superior in image quality for a very long time. The last ca 5 years we have seen digital being at least equal to film, especially when graded properly. Before that I always was kind of sag not ot have that kodak-feeling, although in tth 90s they fucked up a lot (a lot of magenta in some hollywood movies etc).
I also think that the Arri is much more user-friendly than other Cinema Cameras. Especially for the ACs.
@Jackson Kang'ethe The low light capture is incredible, the amount of ND in the filter wheel makes my job tons easier, a lot more user friendly builds, and not having to go on my phone to access wireless control or plug the evf back in every time something needs to change and I'm on steadicam or Ronin. The WCU-4 is awesome, and no hate on Arri here, they're an amazing company and they do great work, they just don't always have the crew in mind when they create their gear.
@Mssmilelovejoy lol why so? Sony doesn't have a system similar to WCU-4
As an AC the Sony Venice beats out Arri hands down.
The Sony Venice really is the only other serious contender at this moment and is being seen more and more in television. Just the fact that you have every Nd up to 2.4, two different base ISO’s, and a 6k sensor. I used to actually hate that camera mostly due to it’s awkward Rialto system, but after doing a job where I had to constantly switch between 4K anamorphic and 6k spherical and creating a system that was easy to switch between the two formats, I have come to accept it. That being said, I think the Arri Mini LF is a game changer in the sense that it is small and easy to work with. Fixing the issues that made the original mini a pain. (Ie where the eyepiece plugged in). I have never had a good experience with Red. Colour shifting being the main issue in colder weather among it’s other issues.
I’ll put the Blackmagic 12k up against your Sony any day.
@Mssmilelovejoy “I’m astonished that you think you know more than the people creating these cameras” who in the comments create arri cameras🥴?? And yes we all know arri creates more then just cameras who said they didn’t? You have the arri m18, m40, arri max, sky panels, arri orbiter and even their tungsten lights, do you live under a rock? And of course indie filmmakers can buy the camera nothing is stopping them from doing so. But that’s not their market. Just like panavision the millennium DXL is a rental only camera, just like imax cameras. Do you think their market is consumers or indie, no it’s not. It’s big production like Sony, or lions gate , or Disney. There’s nothing wrong with a company branching out. Based off your logic marvel isn’t good at making movies since it started off as a comic company 🥴. Cameras have gotten so good that it doesn’t matter what camera you buy. If you’re good at your craft you can make any modern camera look good. And if you’re saying I’m lying then you’re not telling yourself the truth. There’s a video of the pocket 6k that went against an arri camera. And it was hard to tell what is what. Guess which camera won in low light. Not the one that cost $50K. A lot of the mistakes can be fixed with lighting. And not to mention canon is now using the same technology as arri with the DGO sensor. If you don’t believe me it’s on arris site the ALEV sensors. Just like canons they take two outputs (exposures) and combine them together. I’m not stuck on a single camera manufacturer. Don’t get me wrong I don’t think their products are terrible, they are fantastic but I’m not about to lie to myself and make up excuses about the prices. FYI my dream camera is an Alexa, I want the LF mini. I’m not bashing on Arri I’m being truthful about their price.
@Anime Zone Hi, As someone that works with these cameras every day and fixes them there is a reason for their price and it's not the inflation or profit of a greedy company. Each of these cameras take thousands of hours to create and manufacture. Arri specifically has incredible technology and design behind their sensors, unlike that of other companies. What sells to the videography clientele and the RED clientele is not the same. Arri has structured themselves as a cinema company, not a camera company as with RED, or with Sony. They create a massive amount of equipment that's not just cameras, but also lights, techno heads, gear heads etc that are designed specifically for the film industry. This is their niche, just as Panavision has rooted out their niche. Sony started as a different company and has sought to break out into the film industry of which they have only done successfully with the Sony Venice. Every camera before then was only popular in mainly broadcasting due to its lack of quality and design for that industry. The tiers that your implying are something that these other companies have never had to strive for because they specifically created their businesses only to cater to film sets. Even small budget films use this same gear. These cameras are not select to those that can afford them. There's always ways to make them work within your budget and rental houses are more than happy to help out new networking filmmakers by cutting deals or developing partnerships. Cinematography IS the business. They don't make money by cutting corners and charging significantly more for the cameras. They make money by creating a product that is usable, efficient, and excellent quality. RED is a fantastic example of a high-level camera that can't crack into the higher market because of their lackof quality in comparison to their competitors. Some of their newest cameras have been the most expensive on the market and cost more than Arri, Panavision, or Sony. As you claim to be a 1st AC I'm astonished that you think you know more than the people creating these cameras.
I'm on a job at the moment that just selected a Venice over an Arri. Low light performance was the main cited reason. The Venice really does seem to be the only camera at the moment that's at the same standard as the Arris. When people start going on about prosumer cameras like BlackMagics or Reds and can't understand why an Arri costs so much more, it really tells me they're not a professional AC or operator, and haven't actually spent considerable time using these higher end cameras. I'm not even in the camera department (AD), and even to me there's some obvious differences. Prosumer brands are brilliant at marketing, and have established an entire benchmark of criteria for judging the quality of a camera - things like resolution and frame rates and dynamic range. Incremental improvements in these see only marginal increases in price, so people don't understand how a camera that appears to have slightly better specs costs ten times as much. But they're using the wrong metric. For professional grade cameras things like reliability, build quality, and consistency are as important as image quality. And those things are extremely expensive to achieve. Arri individually test and certify ever. single. camera. Technical breakdowns are exceptionally rare. If you're filming in the middle of nowhere and a camera goes down that could cost millions of dollars of lost time while a replacement is organised. But thoroughly testing a camera to ensure that level of reliability is expensive. If you're only shipping ten cameras a month you can afford to test each individual one. If you're shipping ten thousand a month you can't. The other thing to remember when you compare specs is that prosumer brands market specs based on the absolute maximum performance under optimal conditions. Professional camera manufacturers provide baseline guaranteed performance under any conditions. So when you look at, say, dynamic range, and see that an Alexa is only a stop better than your BlackMagic or whatever it is, in actual use the Arri is probably 3-4 stops better.
I work in the film industry since 1984. I owned filmcameras and followed the transition to digital. The biggest downside of the RED as a budget alternative (besides the look and Alexa colors and the camera usability) was the more complex workflow (requiring time consuming Import/conversion) and the unreliability during filming. Early models frequently lost takes and required reboots and after issues often the recording harddrives required reformatting. All that is lost time and reliability on a highly expensive filming day. NOT something you want.
I'm not an expert in the field but I follow a few different content creators behind the scenes who use RED cameras and well they seem to just be infinitely adjustable and lots of options, but more buggy and a more pretentious brand. If Arri makes it simple and is willing to work with the people using their cameras and taking feedback I can see why they're the default for a situation where you just need the best possible quality but also HAS to work no matter what
A small correction, Dune (2021) was shot on the new high-end variant of the LF series, the Arri Alexa LF IMAX and Alexa Mini LF IMAX because it was made specifically for that format and image quality (supporting 1.90:1 and 1.43:1 as native aspect ratios). Great video as always!
There is nothing like an mini lf imax …. The Mini lf is just approved for IMAX
At the end of the process the whole video movie was then filtered through 35mm film to try and improve the look of the harsh video process.
You do realize it's the same exact camera but with IMAX's stamp of approval right? Did you know that the open gate aspect ratio of any lf is exactly 1.43:1?
In our small production company we have Black magic pocket 6K. They are cheap, extremely versatile and easy to use. Also the company listens to our feedback and fixes things. In Greece these little chicks are very popular and used on shooting from 1000$ short films all the way up to 150.000$/episode ( which for Greece are a alot ) TV series as secondary cameras along side main cameras which are off course alexas or REDs. In soap operas of 30.000/episode 90% shout on 2 blackmagics with kit DZO's kit 20-55 / 50-125 But I have to say it. In Greece RED is more popular than Alexa. In fact only a sitcom I was BTS photographer had Alexa the last 2 years. Great video as always.
Just wrapped a commercial shot on Arri and it’s such a good point about usability, it has what you need and no need to fluff around, and of course the image is second to non
Yes, it is definitely the Gold standard and it does have a really great look. operation wise it's pretty easy to use and post-production-wise... the colors are solid. I shoot Blackmagic Mostly and I have done tests with footage from both cams and I have to say that what it comes down to is who's using the camera and who's handling post-production... Some of the most beautiful work I have seen comes from Blackmagic Cameras and some of the messiest work I have seen is from Arri. So this ain't just about the camera and I hope that the takeaway isn't that once you get an Arri that your content will be like that Of Deakins, Hoytema, Fraser. Don't put your basket where you can't reach it. It's A solid system but make sure you are making way for solid personal development and not rely on an Arri. My 2 cents.
@justinoff1 And that's totally okay.. truth is I don't even need a reason because everyone has their preference and in this case, I don't care who would prefer to shoot on what. I really don't. I'm not sure if in this lifetime I'll be as big as Fincher or anyone else for that matter but I'm not going to associate with or disassociate myself from a brand because of any celebrity filmmaker... I would not want to shoot a film on a Sony FX6 but I've seen some beautiful work done on it. get my drift?
@justinoff1 care to elaborate why?
@Austin Hill although I do use many of the Adobe products, Adobe sucks compared to resolve. In every possible way. And in the year and a half I’ve been using Resolve, it never crashes on me. And it plays back most footage way better than premier pro does. And when it comes to color correction, there’s no comparison. Resolve is the gold standard for color correction.
@iKon Media I work for Fincher and Messerschmitt. We would use a Sigma FP before we would ever use an Ursa
Aside from Panavision cameras, Arri just has the longest history of quality, high end cameras, both digital and film. That said, I have seen the Sony Venice on more jobs than any other camera for the last 5 years.
I disagree with your point on the standardization of accessories between ARRI and Panavision film cameras. They used to be completely proprietary. For example, Panavision only used side mounted 5/8” rods for mattebox/lens support, and the follow focus used a dovetail mount on the body itself, whereas ARRI uses bottom mounted 15mm or 19mm rods for mattebox, follow focus, and lens support. Even the batteries/cables have reverse polarity from each other.
One of the main reasons cinematographers gravitated easily towards the Alexa is the simple film-like workflow. They used to choose a certain film stock for a certain scenario, essentially baking in the look without much deviation, for the most part. The only viable alternative at the beginning was the RED (very few could actually choose Genesis), and that camera required dialing in the settings just right to get your look, otherwise things would looks really quite bad out of the box. You could not screw up these things with an Alexa - you just had to expose and WB correctly and you knew you're gonna be solid with the production, which is similar to the way they used to work with film. Knowing what you're going to get every time without fiddling with every single setting on the camera is pretty priceless.
I feel like each one of these videos posted by *In Depth Cine* is a masterclass in itself. The editing and motion graphics are BEAUTIFUL.
As a RED shooter, I can attest to the complexbility for the most part on their functional usage, also red specialise in those warmer skin tones, ARRI is just amazing at those greens, just different tools for different needs, im yet to shoot on ARRI but would love to one day. Love how they aren't focused on resolution, but let the tonality do the talking.
I can confirm that Arri is the most used Camera Company in the industry. I go to a film school and we use both the Arri Classic and Mini respectively. Can't beat practicality and functionality .
I had a few shoots with a red Monstro 8k. Most unreliable and convoluted rig I’ve ever seen. Thing wouldn’t run in direct sunlight, and the boot up time was just not worth it. The operator/owner was also exceedingly slow so I’m sure that contributed, but I really think that might be the worst camera for money right now. Great image tho.
You should have went with 35mm film and it would have given the best look. If you want something easy and would have been acceptable when played on VHS then digital video cameras are the way to go.
I remember shooting a film on an Alexa in film school; I got the pleasure of DPing and grading the footage, and oh man, that was the most pleasant color grading I've ever done.
Its all about the "additive color" tech of Arri that has been patented. Its insane image processing
As a working Professional Sound Mixer, I actually liked working with the Alexa-mini, and it's got great, consistent time code that accepts my TC boxes. Fast set up on camera builds. Don't wait to put your boxes on a gimbal, the DP will get pissed, because the weight changes the gimbal balance. When they have it on the stand or table, get your scratch audio feed, and TC on cam quickly. Don't let the wires or boxes hang there, bongo tie or Velcro everything to a spot away from DP workflow.
I am missing the Alexa D20/D21. The digital camera before the Alexa which was the one actually competing with the Panavision Genesis/Sony F35. It had a vital role in the success of the Alexa line. Now it looks like Alexa was their first camera and instantly their biggest success which isn't true. The D-cams weren't that successful.
As the former CEO of Panavision Europe there is no doubt that the Arri Alexa series of cameras has been hugely successful and been the market leader in both camera rental and personal sales. However fast forward to today and increasingly the Sony Venice has grabbed the second spot and is in some respects better than the Alexa which now has an old tech sensor. The Panavision DXL2 is also a vastly underrated camera. A camera is however only half the game the other half being lenses and optics has a far greater choice and impact the final image more so that the camera sensor alone. Finally service matters a lot goes into the equipment package and the large rental houses like Panavision, Arri Media, Movietech, Panalight etc have skilled personnel with decades of knowledge and can truly support large productions 24/7
@Daniel Dougan former union camera assistant here : Arri and Panavision cameras are simply at a higher level than the cameras you mentioned…in specs, lenses especially, hardware ecosystem, durability and reliability, pro rental support, and higher cost. You can certainly use many cameras to get a great image, or a one-off matched shot in a feature, but a world-class DP/DOP won’t want to stray from using the best, within budgetary constraints. You don’t ask Lewis Hamilton to run an F1 race in a stock road-car, when an F1 car is clearly better suited. A $75 million dollar feature isn’t going to save a few bucks to shoot with consumer electronics like the Z9 or A7SIII, or even a Red most times. The DP and studio want the best, and to have full confidence in the system. And at least In my day, the camera dept. set the tone of confidence and professionalism on set, as we are right with the talent all day. But how I do miss the Panavision Platinums and Arri 35BL4s ;)
@Josh🤠 Digital have a very wide range of looks. It can look very good and “filmic” but it can also look very videoish. Sometimes it’s because the user wants a certain look or because the user doesn’t have the skills.
@Jas Bataille I think your rather mixing up the subject. The Canon C500 is a video camera 1st and foremost and a good camera at that used in many commercials & TV work. As to the other hybrid cameras you mention they tend to be used in fast action clips in major movies not on extended scenes and the grading is down to the skill of the colourists etc so please don’t treat me as an idiot. Technology is evolving always has been always will be and I’ve no doubt that lower end cameras are getting better. However if you look at the specification and the file formats etc of the new Arri Alexa 35 are you honestly telling me hybrid cameras are going to supersede them on mainstream episodic TV, TV series, feature films or high end commercials? I very much doubt it.
@Jeff Allen You're right about the ergonomics, but no, they're not toys even by comparison. As mentioned, a lot of those smaller cameras were used as crash-cams in Hollywood productions *and matched to Arri Alexa's color seamlessly*. BTW, the FX9 is not an hybrid camera, and the Canon C500 is one of the most used camera in publicity, and is also a dedicated cinema camera. Will all due respect, sir, you should know better.
I remember using Red Epic a lot, and having tons of bugs and crashes and overheating problems. Those never happened with the Sony FS5 II and FS7 we had. And the look was good enough for our advertising productions. So, I used to choose the Sonys over the Reds at that moment, since we didn't have any Arris. But yes, Arris are superior in every single way.
Arri focuses on whats actually important, and not just what looks impressive on a spec sheet.
I think it’s amazing what digital cinema cameras capable of nowadays. But for me, I still prefer celluloid. I’m a celluloid lover mainly because I love the grain, depth, and texture of those images. But that’s not to say digital cinema cameras aren’t still awesome. I think what Arri has done with the Alexa and Alexa Mini series is great. But that’s just my preference. I hope more 35mm and 65mm motion film cameras are produced for purchase, cameras that you shoot vertically and horizontally that would be cool, instead of just renting in the future just like digital cinema cameras. IMAX is collaborating with Christopher Nolan and Jordan Peele to create new motion film cameras for upcoming filmmakers, so I think there’s a lot potential for more compact 35mm and 65mm cameras. One of my favorite 35mm cameras is the Beaumont Vista Vision, mainly because I love how it shoots horizontally, which means you get more perforations for a obviously bigger image eight in particular, which is awesome.
Great video, let me offer a different perspective from a TV world. In TV live production Sony cameras are considered a golden standard. Where other cheaper brands such as Grass Valley and Panasonic are looked down upon as simply not as good. Then Arri entered the chat and holy sh.. Their AMIRA cameras provide incredible image quality, bringing their famous look and color science into the live TV production. When you see a live show captured and it looks way to good, it is probably been captured on AMIRA. For reference Sabrina Carpenter iHeartRadio Theater LA show from 2016.
it will be interesting if the picture cameras from canon, sony and nikon are slowly drifting in this field and take away market share. nikon will probably release the Z6-III in the next year that combines their 24MP BSI sensor with the new fast Expeed processor. The signal to noise ratio from this sensor is already great. so, from the hardware, I think, that should be already good enough to support these needs. the question then is, if they can increase their efforts to fulfill the needs of the videographer. it will be interesting how this goes forward. a lot of enthusiasts already use their gear to shoot pictures and make video clips.it might not be that far from a high end video blogger at home to use the same gear to make high quality movies.
Could you do more Crew Breakdown videos :) I'd love to see you discuss the role of Script supervisor or maybe DP! Producer would be really cool too !! Love your videos
At the time of this comment I'm doing my first full movie as a first AC. And I will say of all the different cameras I've worked with the arri mini is the easiest to use
Arri’s first foray into digital camera systems was called the D-50 I believe and was a total flop. Don’t remember the exact year but it was back when Red was new and many people weren’t sure about going to digital.
The D-20 was their very first digital cinema camera. You're correct that the camera wasn't exactly great, but Arri's reputation helped to keep as a top contender when they finally announced the Alexa in 2009 at NAB.
Arri's image and reliability is amazing. Thank you for making this video.
Great video! For someone who used REDs, they overheat all the time lol. But going digital was a step backwards in quality in many ways. The only exception here is low light and night scenes. From scanning film I can tell you that around 40MP is when you aren't gaining more "detail", just sharper grain. Depending on the viewer, the softness of the projection was actually a better look. Which is why digital scans of film can look awful and noisey if not slightly blurred in post and or noise removal. Digital cameras have a looooong way to go until it matches what film quality can do. 2K is 4MP.. yeah that's right 10x lower in pixel count to a native 35mm film scan. Yes you can upscale to double without any noticeable impact. Funny thing is masters are 2K as well and only upscaled for Blu-ray. Whats shown in theaters are 2K JPEG2000 images in sequence on a SSD. Total size is around 4GB. What is even more sad is that Disney has billions and cannot be bothered to show movies or master movies in a higher quality. Seriously, your home blur-ray disc has a better image quality vs the theaters.
@MonkeyMan I believe your confusing the masters and what is sent to theaters. A have a few of those SSDs with the DCP package on it. How to train your dragon is 4GB. Its just JPEG2000 images with a audio file. The many digital projectors are only 1080 which is funny that its downscaled. Your paying $15 for a ticket and once again the home copy is superior in every way. Now if the studios want to release the uncompressed 2k masters. Well that may be a step up. However even the best digital masters are way off in quailty of a film scan done right. The problem is these studios do scans at 2k as well...
A dcp isn’t only 4gb. 90 minute films is about 180fb. You’re way off there. Dcp will far exceed Blu-ray quality. 2k dcp has been the standard for film projection for awhile now, most films have a 2k pipeline and are upconverted to 4K later for Blu-ray. More k is not better. The 2k dcp has a higher bitrate. Also the 4K hdr versions of films usually get far less color grading time than the theatrical. Usually you start with the theatrical and use that as your baseline to do a trim pass on the 4K hdr. 4K is not the hero version. Just because they’re mastered at 2k doesn’t mean they aren’t of high quality that’s kinda a misnomer. 2k is still the most common pipeline and probably will be for awhile. Mostly because of vfx and pipeline costs. Netflix and the streamers are 4K pipelines from acquisition to finish though.
Digital scans of film can look awful… Yes they can. But they can also look amazing. Again the example is DUNE… Dune looked amazing in the theater and it was scanned to film and back again. By the way, just my two cents, the movie sucked. But it did look great.
Thank you for your knowledge sharing really appreciated. Just saw Jurassic world dominion, did not really feel, I know why, it’s 2k.
I wish you would have elaborated on the "tiny bit of pixel movement" that Deakins was talking about. 7:30 I find it very interesting that even shooting on digital, you need a bit of noise for a "better" experience. It reminds me of when the CD came out, many people didn't like it because it was too sterile, even though it clearly has a better frequency and dynamic range than vinyl or tape. I mean you can always make the look (or sound) warmer or add noise in post, depending on what you want. But again, i'm no expert. (Great essay btw!)
I love my Mini LF....one of the best decision that I made is to purchase it, brought in a lot of work and rent request. The New S35 4k is coming in june....Arri Middle East already informed us, will hopefully go for it too.
amazing video, always wondered why Arri cameras were so popular :)
Honestly my favorite brand. Their master lenses are lovely 😊
It's all about the image quality (colors, smooth roll-off) and how easily it grades. Everything else (stability, usability, reliability, accessories, codecs) is just secondary.
@Jas Bataille LOOOOOl. Deakins is a meme DP just like Shane Hurlbut (who said so many silly things to the laughter of other DPs) - I hope there will be a day when I don't see Deakins promoting some product. A DP should be a DP, making money by being a DP and not a goddamn marketing talking head for some companies. Plus, Deakins has only one good movie under his belt - his work on average is MEDIOCRE. I'd rather listen to Tarantino, Eggers, Anderson who shoot exclusively on analog. Deakins can go shoot on a potato - his opinion is absolutely invalid.
I 100% disagree. Reliability and stability beats quality in real like 90% of the time. Even Deakins said that at the end of the day, if the director said he got a cellphone to shoot he'd go with it.
As an Indy filmmaker, I love using a lightweight 4K camera I own rather than rent, and one that gives me lots of flexibility. I shoot with a Canon C200 and EOS R, most often with a 24 mm f/1.4 lens and an Atomos monitor (Shinobi or Ninja V). I've never had a reliability issue. Maybe someday I'll get behind an ARRI, but I haven't had any troubles with this set.
@Thomas Rufer Sorry, I meant EOS R. The sub-$2000 Canon full-frame mirrorless camera.
I think it's funny how much effort cinematographers put into choosing a camera with the look and colour science they want, when the audience doesn't care. You could shoot on a c300 MKI and they'd still think it looked good because they're more inclined to notice issues with audio.
@Michael Zaite saw several terrible movies shot on Arris, they were still terrible 😂
That's... not true at all. They would definitely notice, but they would not know what's "wrong".
@Michael Zaite I'm not saying a movie won't be "precisely crafted" but if James Cameron shot on an Alexa, it isn't going to make more people engage with the film verses a Venice.
@TVperson1 I think it's one of those things where it just doesn't impact people. Or they say stuff like "The Story seemed fine, but it just didn't engage me" or a general "It just didn't feel right" When someone sees something precisely crafted and designed to be striking, I think it affects them. Hell people liked Avatar and aside from being lushly colored and well exposed, it's just a bad remake of Fern Gully.
@Michael Zaite If it's not over exposed at all, lit correctly and graded correctly, I'm not so sure
Im not into cinematography so I was curious why so many ppl chose Arri instead of Red...this video made it crystal clear thankyou...I had a chance to try RED once and it BLEW MY MIND....with all the buttons....psh mental breakdown
Alexa mini LF owner here, fortunately have been able to use just every digital cine camera from bmpcc6k (which I still own and use), and at least 8 different types of red cameras(komodo is valid) up to the Mini LF. Arri is truely the best camera company in the world. If you don't believe me, shoot a project on Arri with cooke 1.8 anamorphic or any high end glass and watch your mind be blown. Here's a music video I shot with that setup https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PePIoe9eYI . It can make our jobs seem too easy at times but allows room for extreme creativity and style.
Your music video reminds me of an Insurance Commercial. 🥳
I can see why Arri is the most used. Though, I do enjoy movies shot on Red, Panavision, Sony Venice, IMAX cameras
Maybe the more interesting question is : Why some movies are not shot with ARRI camera..?
❤️ Hermosa eleccion 4.FO/Elizeid de mejor 1 (elecciones ) 9.9/10 2 ( culturales ) 9.7/10 Son unos de los mejores conciertos , no-puede-ir-pero-de-tan-solo verlos desde pantalla,, se que estuvo Sorprendente .
Nice vid. Now I expect you to talk about the other european film camera brand that starts with two "A" and brought us the "Penelope Delta" 10 years ago - nice and promising idea, but that was their downfall. Also, Arri Alexa's filmic look is such an overplayed cliché now. I've never seen any film shot with it that had the same depth as a 35mm/70mm copy print or a DCP made from a scan of a copy print...
Can you tell me the brand with two “A”? I don’t know a lot about thiscc vs world and I’m curious
Great video. But, my God man, every shot you have in your video has been completely color graded. High end camera's nowadays, (all of them) shooting in RAW are only providing the basis for the final look. It's time the importance of the colorist in the workflow was recognized.
No, no, and no. There is ALOT of processing done before the image ends up as raw. Also just the selection of color filter chemicals for the sensor photosites is extremely important - it already defines the image before processing and saving as RAW. Colorist can only work with what's available in the raw.
Oh the Alexa Super 35 4k....I remember hearing it would release in 2020....then early 2021 and now....where is it? Still, ARRI cameras are great, I shot some short films with the Alexa Classic and the Amira and while both are rather old, they're still so much better looking than most new cameras.
The Sony Venice and especially the Venice 2 is absolutely beating out Arri even the Arri LF systems. Arri will always be considered an amazing camera system but they aren't adapting nearly as quickly as their competitors. We can't keep the Sony Venice on the shelf and have had DP's opt for the Venice 2 on major feature productions over Arri. Movies are no longer mostly shot on Arri cameras. Was this relevant 2 years ago, absolutely, but now the competition is getting too tight. Not to mention Panavision is still very popular and always was neck and neck with Arri.
@PeanutFreak44 Technically sony is only behind by 1 stop. The Venice 2 is 16 stops of light so while yes that is a difference it's not a make it or break it scenario. I recently was testing with a DP who got a highly anticipated remake coming out in the next couple years. He was testing between the Venice 2 and LF, so unfortunately I can't speak for 35 in this scenario. There was barely any variation when it came down to colour and he was a die hard Arri DP who actually ended up liking the Venice 2 more after. However he ended up going with neither cameras because he didn't like the quality of the lens flares that the lenses were producing. He wanted Panavision glass which is only available directly from them. Lenses will always be the main choice over colour, camera's, anything. Unless you're in TV producers don't really touch decisions like colour or texture so I don't think that's a worry for any DP's, it's more that this "cooks" it into the file. We'll see what the colour range brings but honestly at this lvl of the game Arri is not bringing it. While this will certainly please the film crowd and a select number of independent filmmakers I can't see this beating out the practicalities that their competition provides, not just other brands but the Alexa 65 for highend art shoots. From what I'm seeing this seems like the LF where, yeah that's really cool and Arri out did themselves again, but was the LF popular? Not anywhere near where Arri was hoping it would be. If anything it pushed the signature primes and those have been a bigger reason for DP's shooting on LF than any added bonus of colour. The Alexa 35 is gonna be just that, a broader option to allow DP's to access older Super 35 lenses that have the vintage look that everyone is chasing right now. That will be the driving reason why people choose this camera.
Well. Arri just came out with their new sensor and colorscience. And their new "Texture" feature gives DoP's the option to imprint certain looks into the digital raw file. A lot of DoP's I know love that kind of stuff, where they can make the decision on set and no producer can reverse it post. No way to tell yet, but I can imagine a lot of high-end feature shoots going with the new Arri Alexa 35 until Sony catches up in terms of dynamic range.
The last point is the reason why the Arri is the go to camera. Even though they're cameras with better technical specs, to a cinematographer, IMAGE rules.
Not true. I work with a ProDP and a good DP knows that the shoot going well without technical issues is also very important
if image rules then they'd be shooting on film
@Dolly Rancher Exactly. A beautiful piece of tech and innovation.
Depends what specs you're looking at - Arris are bulletproof and have their patented "Dual Gain Architecture" (far superior to the slow Canon DGO) which could be part of the reason why its image rules
Just seeing the title and not watching the video yet I think it’s safe to say that the results of movies shot on an Arri speak for themselves but interested to what this video has to say
I love both Arri 65 and 35 mm film stock. I want both of them to live so that we can have more options 😘
@Brad Hensil Thanks for your reply, I'll try to read more about what you mentioned. I'm from India, where they make most movies a year (usually trash, sorry if truth hurts to other readers). Yet, there's no easy way for a person to get hold of film stock and labs. There's practically only 'one' functioning lab in the whole country.
You can still rent Arriflex/Arricam range cameras from the company and other rental houses. They're the most common film cameras available
The Alexa Classic is still magic to this day. I've shot some of my best work on the Classic.
Hey Daniel. Do you have any links to some of your work done on the classic?
I still didn't get why digital camera from Panavision didn't take off so fast as ARRI, as it had the same great legasy
Alexa has just the best picture, the best colors (by far) and a fool proof system.
The Red cameras had a lot of issues especially in the early days. A producer wants the shots to be done. So many choosed ARRI Cameras. Panasonic well i dont know why they are so far behind in the digital field.
Personally I thing Sony has the best color accuracy and balance in the industry.
how are professional cinematographers thinking about sensor size? I always have the feeling in tech-youtube its all about being full frame
Isn't the large format sensor like 80 percent of the reason cinematographers choose Arri? the rest is 10 percent the stuff mentioned in this video, and the rest 10 percent is the cost.
ive tried Red Cam , next on my list to use is Arri ! Very insightful video! thank you
Arri camera's have high dynamic range and high bit rates. Because of this they are nearly as noisy as a leafblower. That's why you always see them with telephoto lenses. They suffer the same blight as the old Panavision cameras. You need a sound barrier between camera and talent.
I'm seeing lots of Sony logos but, other than Panavision, the only comparison in the script was with Red..? The only mention of Sony was that Panavision use some of their imaging technology. I'm genuinely interested to know why (if most movies that aren't shot on Alexa are shot on Venice) wasn't Venice even mentioned?
The (Sony) Panavision Genesis was a good camera though with a very capable sensor though... Just watch Apocalypto for proof. But yeah, the Arri Alexa's are beauty's!!! :D
I've wondered for a while now why so many filmmakers are using digital Arri cams instead of others, because looking at the specs I don't see many differences. That the color science of Arri is a key here makes sense. Also, it seems that there has been a BIG push by people world over to put the RED up as some type of "god level" camera, which I suppose is just because it is much more affordable for the average filmmaker.
Any Cinematographers out there, Can I know what is your experience on choosing Arri camera over any other cameras?
Howdy, commercial/doc DP here! Used the Mini on a Verizon commercial and absolutely loved it. Reliable, amazing image off the bat when levels are set properly. My experience: if you do the work in pre and get your production design right, the Arri will be there to help you greatly.
So many incorrect statements in this video. The D-20 was their first digital cinema camera, and it was rental only (like the Panavision). You might want to check out Arri's history page to get an accurate timeline.
Good colors are nice to have, but i wonder how important they are since most movies get colorgraded to death in post production.
HAHAHA I love how you put a clip of the Will Smith slap walk-up when you spoke about the Oscars, Now that's subtle comedy. @0:32 Genuis! haha
The relationship between arri and red is almost synopsis with todays relationship between canon and Sony. Is so best set up to become the modern arri?
@TigeroL42 lol true I was think more from the aspect of the two businesses being competitors
How come? Sony and canon are both reputable companies which make every single product last from bottom to top shelf. There's just the fact that Sonys are way ahead in sensor and colour science. RED on the other hand is overgrown black magic lol...
Very very cool explanation ! Maybe one day you could make a clip about red clipping to pinkish on many digital cams until only some years back...
Thanks. Writing simply as one who watches films, I love the Alexa look.
I dont know anything about this business but I have noticed that the Panavision logo is in the end of a lot less movie credits these days. It used to be on basically every movie at the very tail of the credits where they listed all the equipment firms.
As someone like myself that would like to get into the film industry who is 40yrs and has had struggles with education with having several learning disabilities in school and life what would you say is the best introductory Film cameras that isn't too complicated and is quite affordable, which has been my passion since I was 13 in1994 to be a Film director , but as adult I understand the Film industry is very hard to get into so I wouldn't mind any job even if I could get coffees, I just would love to be in it.
@Chandler Goodrich Oh yes definitely, thank you, I really appreciate it.
@Roberto Buatti it’s a pleasure! But just know that you don’t need a fancy camera to start filmmaking. The best camera is the one you have access to.
@Chandler Goodrich Oh thank you for that, I really appreciate the advice, it gives me hope that I can still live my dream to one day become a Filmmaker. I would love to be in any field of Filmmaking just to learn the craft would be amazing. I will looking into those cameras as a starting point to learn how to shoot films as I'm on a disability pension and can't afford anything to expensive. Again thank you for the advice and the kind words.
The best intro-level cinema camera I’ve seen today is the blackmagic design pocket cinema cameras. Even for a brand new camera, the price is outstanding, it shoots raw, and pro-res, very user-friendly menu, and the noise pattern on the newer ones feels very filmic. We use them at work, and they make a great image. You can buy the original pocket cinema camera used for around $500, but if you wanna get the 4K one, it’s $1,300 brand new, which is amazing for a cinema camera. There’s a few other models, but do some shopping, figure out how you want to shoot. As for learning directing, learn to write screenplays and tell stories, learn to Light and take pictures, Watch great movies, great plays, look at great photography, read classic literature, read the Bible, take fascination with people’s stories, take some acting classes (not meisner), learn basic sound work. And make films while you are doing all that. The best way to learn is by doing a project, and it’ll make your research more effective. And remember that Directing is building a relationship. The crew you work with are people too, and they have feelings, sensibilities, and ideas. A good Director recognizes when there’s a good idea, and is objective when an idea is not good. But sometimes the bad idea is a gateway to a good one, or that idea makes its way into some other part of the project or maybe a different project altogether. If you want to direct movies, then go direct movies. They don’t cost that much to make when you’re starting out. When you’re done making them, show them to people and get their feedback. And have a thick skin, because you will get some bad feedback haha. But this is how we learn.
im still gonna give arri and red a no regardless how much 'better' people claim them to be. its too proprietary for their own good. worse than apple. My set would have a Black magic only tool set and a no mac/apple device environment. Put a statement in #RightToRepair and device ownership rights.
Sony Venice has wider gamut, dynamic range and noise that is far more like film (variations in size over luminance). But the Arri is far harder to mess up the settings, and the Sony menu is a mess. I.e. the transition to digital from film was easier with the Arri. It’s easier to use, and harder to fruk up. I’ve posted over 100 features, and the Arri gets consistent results (I examine the metadata so I know what’s been done in the settings by the dop). imo the Sony creates better image both in it’s character and technical range, but is harder to learn how to use.
Sony menu system is something beyond comprehension. A million buttons and one crappy scrollwheel to actually do anything
also you are in peru and drop your sony in the soup you wont get another one next day latest
lol, Sony messed up their menu system from entey level mirrorless camera all the way to their professional cinema camera 😂
im on a film right now and think they should be using 3c500 instead of 2 arri - an af 70-200 (or 200/2) would be picking up all sorts that would make the edit - the arri hype is a bit much
I am a complete layperson when it comes to video, I am an audio person myself. I still see a film like quality to movies shot on ARRIs, I am not sure what it is and I don’t have the necessary knowledge to pinpoint it. There is a certain look to their footage that I find very appealing.
Having worked with Alexa footage, the skin tones are just perfect but the Sony Venice has the specs to compete and for TV shows its been popping as the go-to camera of choice. The one I'd never touch again is RED, yeah it's super sharp but it looks so clean and digital that isn't as pleasing but maybe it's just me being bias towards Alexa.
@Isaac Alonzo It was really good at that.
@Michael Zaite velvia was my favourite stock film, loved the green reproduction
@Isaac Alonzo Maybe it's my hold over preconception from Velvia.
@Michael Zaite the old fuji s5 pro had amazing skin tones. I had to do a lot of testing with Slog3 in order to match it with the Panasonic footage.
Sony has that Fujifilm "blueishness" to it which on most uncalibrated Fluorescent and LED backlit TV's looks good enough due to how HD handles color.
I've seen the new S35 Alexa. It looks like a Mini LF XL.
As a lover of Film and a hater of digital the Arri is the only substitute especially the 65 (Joker/RogueOne). Digital camera's cannot perform the magic trick that Film performs on the eye, nor can they match the colour pallet. But, if you must shoot on digital the Arri is hands down the best compromise.
I recognize your voice as the narrator of the ‘library film tapes’ in Dune! Nicely done👍☺️
Interesting, Mank (2020) was shot on RED Ranger Helium Monochrome, an 8K digital camera that only records black and white. Mank won best cinematography Oscar for (2021). I think while Arri is the overall best, it doesn't mean it's the best option for every production.
@Spaghet My point exactly. He likes the look of RED camera's for his particular filmmaking.
it’s cause fincher is almost always using red
Such an interesting and well done video, thanks!
I love videos like this. If you apply this to the bottom of the industry now, the future of this legacy will more than likely be Sony & RED
Thank you. Very informative and well presented.
A fun fact about reliability: a truck full of Arri equipment burned down and the camera looked bad, but it was still running and producing a normal image. Isn't that incredible
I saw that! I was hoping they might want to sell it to me cheap! Haha
Wow didn’t know Arri cameras were that dominant. They look amazing!
Their lenses too, they really make a good product
Just out of curiosity. How much does a camera of this class cost?
Thank you for this video. Very insightful and informative.
I would love to see a Cinematography style video on Christopher Doyle
Greg Fraser has changed the game with Dune and The Batman, both shot on Arri.
mid, but you can say Emmanuel Lubezki did with Gravity, Birdman and The Revenant
It’s a mission critical tool that represents a tiny fraction of a big film budget. So the filmmakers don’t f*** around with cheaper stuff that can screw them. Simple.
Interesting video, but you are talking about the majority of movies being finished in 2K and show a clip from Dune at this moment, but Dune was finished in 4K.
Luckily there are still people like Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan or Tom Cruise who carry on the traditional and best way of filmmaking
Roger deakins, “use the camera that’s right for the project”….. has used the same camera for every movie. …….. telling me Alexa is the right choice for EVERYTHING!
Excellent video! Makes it a pleasure to watch and learn…thank you.
Personally I like the more dynamic look of "The boys" shot with Sony Venice more then the ultra shadow reveling natural look.. Classic films dont look anything like that.. They are bright with strong blacks.. But the industry goes the other way..
@Allen Williams Oh really.. You are a genius!
I also like the look of “the boys“… But if you think that’s what the camera looks like then you know nothing about it. It is so heavily color corrected that it’s not even in the ball park of what the camera saw. The camera just gives them the ability to go crazy with the color correction… And they do it beautifully. But trust me, it doesn’t look at all like what the camera has seen.
Color science is hard to notice and achieve yet crucial to one camera. ARRI did it right like Kodak used to. Nowadays BMD also do it right and to some extent you can almost interchange scenes shot on BMD with ARRI and hardly notice the difference. Also a bit shame that SONY actually made every part of their cinema camera in house, including the cmos sensor (ALEV sensor is actually designed and made by ON Semi) yet sometimes they still fucked up on color science. I mean, yeah, maybe ARRI is not the most cutting edge camera manufacturer out there, but they are the most thoughtful ones.
I’ve never had to cross my fingers or hold my breath and pray with an Arri camera.
Meanwhile, my Panasonic GH5S video looks better than almost every other camera on the market, including full-frame Sony and Canon offerings.
I mean Arri was making the 35mm and 16mm cameras used by Hollywood before. So they're not "mimicking" a film camera, they just adapted their literal film camera system with a digital sensor. And... voilà! Now... people don't know this... but Leica make stuff for everyone (even cameras for Panasonic with the SH series being a complete copy of the SL models with a few more buttons and extra firmware stuff) in the world of still photography, and the experience is second to none, for the same exact reason. Can't be this many years of experience in ergonomics. The worst mistakes of digital camera makers was to completely change the ergonomics around, which was not needed. That's the key reason why Arri and Leica will never be beaten - even if the later isn't the brand of "choice" for most photographers, the truth is, they own the market of lenses from cellphones to large-format primes!
Aufrufe 1 500 000
Aufrufe 200 000
Aufrufe 261 000
The Hype House
Aufrufe 310 265
Aufrufe 1 079 047
Aufrufe 2 100 000
Aufrufe 2 600 000
Aufrufe 84 000
Aufrufe 1 600 000
Aufrufe 10 000 000
Aufrufe 459 000
Aufrufe 249 000