Rumour: Arri wants to strike back

[Tom Lowe]

The more competition, the better.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

The more competition, the better.

Absolutely! And I can see some healthy competition developing here.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Absolutely! And I can see some healthy competition developing here.

Probably not that healthy. Arri will have huge trouble keeping up with Jim, IMO.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think that consumers necessarily stick to the cheaper brand they started out with once they get more money. I started out shooting on Super-8 Sankyo cameras, then 16mm Eclair cameras, and now 35mm Panaflex and ARRICAM cameras. Where's my loyalty to Sankyo? :shifty:

Just because film students may start out with cheaper cameras, doesn't necessarily mean they'll want to use the same cheaper cameras when they have a larger budget. Maybe, maybe not. They'll probably re-evaluate and choose whatever makes the most sense for their budget and project, not make the sentimental choice. If someone sticks to FCP even on a bigger project, it's probably because FCP does what he needs it to do -- if it didn't, he probably would choose whatever did.

Honestly, the professional cinema equipment market is limited. It's always going to be limited. The costs of making feature films are barely related to the costs of the technology compared to all the other costs, once you get above the minimal amount of money to make a movie. So having gathered an expensive cast, expensive locations, expensive key collaborators, etc. you are unlikely to make the final choice on technology based solely on cost or a sentimental attachment from film school days, not with so much money on the line.

So as long as ARRI makes a great product, there will be people who will find the money to use it if they feel it is worth it.

Besides, from my recollection of film school, most students dreamed of using more expensive technology they perceived as being better -- they weren't brand-name loyal to whatever they could afford in school. In fact, familiarity can breed contempt, hence the techno-lust that some students fall into, thinking they MUST use the most expensive Zeiss Master Prime for their thesis film when a used Zeiss Super Speed would serve them just as well.

Like I said, look at the car market -- some people still buy expensive cars even when a cheaper car has just as many features, performs just as well. Just because Toyota does well doesn't mean there isn't room for a car company like Porsche.

 

[Tom Lowe]

As usual, David is correct.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I'm all for healthy competition. And I think with the recent sale of Dalsa's cinema camera division, we may start seeing some.

While there is nothing to substantiate the rumor that sparked this thread, one thing is for certain. Digital cinema is here to stay and just like the still photography world, will undoubtedly be the dominant acquisition form in the not too distant future.

Arri already makes digital cinema cameras and we know they are salivating over the potential market of RED customers. They're already seeing more business on the accessory side of things due to RED. Arri will continue to evolve their digital offerings and who knows, they may even make some entries that appeal to smaller boutique production houses and owner operators with proportionately smaller budgets. Which is a relatively new market that did not exist a few years ago, as the few such operations were slugging it out with prosumer gear.

I'm actually surprised with the run-away sales on RED cameras and the over-inflated prices on 20 year old lenses out there, that Arri hasn't stepped up more on the accessory end. They could have made a killing already selling a RED-oriented set of Ultra Primes at a serious discount. Specify a kit of 5 lenses like 18, 24, 35, 50, 85 and price it to move lots of them. Wish they had, still wish they would...

RED is the new game in town with a new business model for this industry. It's only a matter of time until others step up with products that compete on a feature for feature basis. We'll see how they compete on price. As has been mentioned, Arri may continue to charge more if they can justify it based on one or two small features they can offer or even just their name alone.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

It will be interesting to see what ARRI comes up with to address what was the Super-16 market, not just the more expensive 35mm market. Or if another Super-16 camera company like Aaton will instead jump in with the digital equivalent of an Aaton XTR or Arri-SR3 relative to a more expensive 35mm version.

In other words, while I think there is a profitable niche market for an expensive digital cinema camera for high-end production, will ARRI also address the midrange market that was buying their Super-16 cameras, like for European TV, etc.? Or had they already given that up to Sony HD cameras and whatnot? Super-16 had a huge increase in usage over the past few years as sort of the "anti-digital-but-more-affordable-than-35mm" choice for filmmakers, but that seems to be declining now thanks to RED and other single-sensor cameras and better 3-CCD HD cameras (better as in more dynamic range than before.)

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Super-16 had a huge increase in usage over the past few years as sort of the "anti-digital-but-more-affordable-than-35mm" choice for filmmakers, but that seems to be declining now thanks to RED and other single-sensor cameras and better 3-CCD HD cameras (better as in more dynamic range than before.)

True. And exactly my case. I was about to pull the trigger on a Aaton A-Minima package when I found out about the RED One.

The RED One won.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

I thought Aaton had announced a digital magazine system that could drop into some of their newer cameras. 6K resolution, if I recall...

 

[Christian Munoz D]

I thought Aaton had announced a digital magazine system that could drop into some of their newer cameras. 6K resolution, if I recall...

http://www.aaton.com/files/penelope2.pdf

 

[Kwan Khan]

humm...

 

[Priyesh P.]

If 4K for 40K $ for an Arriflex camera is true then it`s a huuuuuuge bargain. Sony`s F35 comes at 300K if I´m not mistaken. And arrogance plus ignorance of Arri aside - if they do / produce something they do it expensively but (!) right. period.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I don't think that consumers necessarily stick to the cheaper brand they started out with once they get more money. I started out shooting on Super-8 Sankyo cameras, then 16mm Eclair cameras, and now 35mm Panaflex and ARRICAM cameras. Where's my loyalty to Sankyo? :shifty:

Just because film students may start out with cheaper cameras, doesn't necessarily mean they'll want to use the same cheaper cameras when they have a larger budget. Maybe, maybe not. They'll probably re-evaluate and choose whatever makes the most sense for their budget and project, not make the sentimental choice.

I'm not saying people who shoot with 2/3" Scarlets in film school are going to go out and shoot features with them professionally after they graduate. I'm saying they're going to be more likely to choose Red cameras (probably higher end models) because they're all going to share many of the same characteristics -- on-camera controls and menus, workflow, etc. There's nothing sentimental about choosing tools that you're familiar with and that you know can achieve the results you want.

If someone sticks to FCP even on a bigger project, it's probably because FCP does what he needs it to do -- if it didn't, he probably would choose whatever did.

Red appears to be planning to have a camera suitable for every level of production.

thinking of 15 months of beta/buggy/surfer rescue/monkey coming/clipfinding workaround software...i guess people who need the tools THEY WANT (This indicates that there is a choice to choose from) arri would have a great chance to get market share.

And Arri would... what? Launch from day one with an end-to-end integrated workflow hosted on commodity hardware and using low-cost commodity software? Of course not. They'd make sure there was a solid high-end workflow, but it has always been easy to work with Red footage if you throw enough money at the problem. Just transcode everything to DPX and feed it into any one of the existing DI workflows.

What has taken so long to arrive workflow-wise is a workflow that lets you work directly from the (compressed) native camera files, avoiding transcoding and huge file sizes with without giving up access to the full range of data in the raw file. If Arri targets a higher end market, odds are they wouldn't even try to implement such a workflow.

 

[Albert Armes]

Has anyone seen the Arri raw tools, what they look like, how they work, what workflows they fit into?

 

[M Most]

Has anyone seen the Arri raw tools, what they look like, how they work, what workflows they fit into?

The current situation, based around the D21 and its RAW delivery via Arri's T-Link interface (which delivers data over a dual link transport) basically revolves around third party support for original recording and data management and Arri's own software tools for final file conversion. Both S.two and Codex are supporting T.Link, with S.two having a bit of a more evolved system at the moment because they were the first on board. You record into an S.two DFR (uncompressed, with the RAW data frames formatted in a DPX wrapper). You then use S.two's A-Dock to create a number of products simultaneously - Quicktime files (with a quick debayer and a 1D LUT applied), RAW file backups to portable drives, and one or two LTO3 cartridges. All of this is done automatically, time codes are maintained, and metadata is also maintained. At the same time, you get XML files that are fed into an S.two developed database that document all pertinent metadata, along with information as to what files are on what LTO. The files are automatically put into a hierarchical directory structure that is based around DMag ID (the DMag is the disk based portable recording pack that loads into both the DFR and the ADock), date, scene number, and take number. This hierarchy is maintained throughout production and post production. When editorial is locked, the EDL is then applied (using S.two's tools) to the database, and an automated file restoration is done from the LTO's. This restoration brings in only the frames used in the cut (the RAW files are individual frames, not wrapped movie files) and recreates the original directory hierarchy. You then use Arri's software (Image Booster) to debayer and apply the color matrix of your choice to create RGB DPX files, in either 2K, 3K, or HD formats, that also match the original directory structure. The color matrices available are designed primarily with film output in mind (although there is one for Rec709 video as well), and basically conform to Cineon print density, which gives you a 10 bit log image that works very, very well with a print preview LUT. This all probably sounds very complex to a Red User crowd, but the truth is that it all works quite well, and there's really no special workflow inventions needed. The RAW conversion time, in my experience, is a bit less than Red's full debayer, but it definitely takes some time. The nice thing is that the Image Booster software does all the work - you point it to the RAW files, and it recreates the same directory hierarchy for the converted files, so everything is ID'd the same way from the start of the process to the end.

 

[Hans von Sonntag]

Iridas SpeedGrade performs RT Arri D21 RAW. The quality Arri's D21 delivers is simply stunning. Uncompressed RAW is not a bad thing - quality wise. There are many LUTs for Arri RAW availabe. Arri is definately not sleeping. Perhaps a bit slow. And Red is lightning fast - but there are downsides to this, we all know.

Today a D21 is a heavy mother, hardly to use handheld, etc... Not a substitute to the sleek Arri LT or even the 235. But please bear in mind that Arri is a company that has a 100+ years tradition in long-term thinking. And their business does not rely only upon movie cameras.

David's thoughts about the S16 market are interesting. Currently there are more S16 features/shows shot than ever before. Here in Europe Sony's F900 did not eat up much of the S16 market. For PAL S16 is still a very viable format with a known and proved workflow. Red is currently entering the TV market but many productions stay with S16 - a lot easier to handle on postproduction side.

In the last 20 years Arri's main customers were rental houses and some private owner on the S16 side, rarely 35mm and if so, only commercial production houses were buying an Arri 35III.

With Red not too much changed. Some 435 bodies are sitting now on the shelf, but the PL glass market increased a lot, same with all necessary acessories such as matteboxes, FF etc. Doubtless, in this regard Arri is not losing an inch, on the contrary.

Im dead sure that Arri will release a RAW camera that will substitute the SR3s and 416. It won't be as cheap as a Red Scarlet, much more in the high Epic numbers. I suppose it will be techically very different to Red's offerings, probably utilising a conventional, optical viewfinder, mirror shutter, etc...

There will be many who will love the Arri and rent it, as theys do now. Others stick with Red. Private owners, however, are likely to stay with Red, I guess.



Hans

 

[David Mullen ASC]

All I'm saying is that there is room for more than one digital cinema cameramaker in the world... that competition is good... and to not write-off ARRI.

As for young people becoming "comfortable" with RED, so much that when they advance in the industry, they want to keep working with RED, well, that may be true with some owners-operators, but as a DP doing feature films, my AC's are the primary people that have to deal with the camera body and how it is set-up, and the director has even less interaction with the physical camera than I do. And as a professional DP, I have to be comfortable with any number of cameras by Sony, Panasonic, Panavision, ARRI, RED, etc. -- my livelihood depends on it. This tends to push more cinematographers to evaluate cameras independently and dispassionately, rather than to stick to one brand and never deviate. Now there are some bigger DP's who have the luxury of just using a Panaflex on every show, and using the same Kodak stock, the same lens package... but most of us aren't in that position, we are faced with a potentially new set of tools on every show we are hired to shoot.

So it doesn't really matter if some film school DP today or tomorrow is more comfortable with the RED versus an ARRI -- I'm comfortable with Panavision cameras today, which I didn't even use in film school! I used Eclair NPR's mostly, and the Arri-S. Imagine how little my career would have advanced if I told people interviewing me that I was most comfortable using an Eclair NPR...

The people that advance are the ones that reject sticking to a narrow brand-name out of comfort and are willing to constantly re-evaluate one's options as new tools come on the market. So if -- and this is a big hypothetical "if" -- ARRI comes out with a "better" product, then most professional DP's will gravitate towards it no matter how comfortable they have gotten with a RED camera. Same goes for FCP -- if someday someone made an editing software that was better, and you (Chris) stuck with FCP because it's what you were comfortable with since a beginner, you'd be no different than the people you are deriding for sticking to AVID today.

Maybe it's just my particular bent, being someone who alternated between Fuji and Kodak most of their career, and Panavision and ARRI, that -- as someone who doesn't own any equipment other than two light meters and now a Micro Litepanel -- that I'm so prone to avoiding brand-name loyalty, but there are other cinematographers who feel the same way as I do -- which is: make the manufacturers give me a good reason to use their product. And if a better product comes along, then go for it.

It's more complicated than that, of course, because there is a human side to this, we develop personal relationships with companies, we prefer some company's tech service over others, etc. all of which affect our decision-making process. But as a general principle, one should be guided by a clear and dispassionate evaluation of the tools available, and make constant re-evaluations as new tools come along, or old one's are revised, all the while avoiding the trap of assuming that anything new must be better... this general approach is more practical than simple brand-name loyalty and sticking within one's comfort zone.

All of this is to say, don't write-off ARRI...

 

[Cüneyt Kaya]

And Arri would... what? Launch from day one with an end-to-end integrated workflow hosted on commodity hardware and using low-cost commodity software? Of course not. They'd make sure there was a solid high-end workflow, but it has always been easy to work with Red footage if you throw enough money at the problem. Just transcode everything to DPX and feed it into any one of the existing DI workflows.

What has taken so long to arrive workflow-wise is a workflow that lets you work directly from the (compressed) native camera files, avoiding transcoding and huge file sizes with without giving up access to the full range of data in the raw file. If Arri targets a higher end market, odds are they wouldn't even try to implement such a workflow.

reds camera is cheap.
reds workflow not.

if someone comes a long with an open SDK...hey we are talking about RAW...there are vendors who can reverse engineer and implement in weeks...

the techniques of debayering are here since years.
dont know chris...this arri thing is just a rumour...

but red is like a cheap sports car needing 30 liters of gasoline for 100 km.
if red would only open up their SDK immediatly....
which they will do...question is when.

 

[Joe G.]

This is exciting. I want to see both the new FF35 scarlett and the new Arris.

I have been wary of the Red One because of the 12 bit / compressed, dynamic range thing, and even the rolling shutter.

If I'm going to make a feature, I need the highest quality imagery, period. On that I'm not entertaining any compromises. The new Scarletts with 16 bit 13+ stops and full frame sensor seem to meet or exceed 35mm film quality. That is what I have been anticipating. Arri will probably do likewise. They know their business. They're not going to make a sub-standard image acquisition system. And they have the hindsight of what Red has done, and the other competitors, as well as the latest advances in flash memory and faster processors. It's a very exciting time, although the competition pushing films onto the public will be crippling.

 

[Chris Kenny]

reds camera is cheap.
reds workflow not.

Red workflow is scalable. You can create a 2K DPX deliverable for a feature film using less than $10K worth of hardware and software, or you can spend $100K+ to have a high-end post house take your footage though something more like a traditional DI workflow.

if someone comes a long with an open SDK...hey we are talking about RAW...there are vendors who can reverse engineer and implement in weeks...

A $40K+ camera that only shoots uncompressed is going to be much less widely used than a $17.5K camera that shoots at a data rate that plays back from a single hard drive. This creates much less incentive for software vendors to support the format. Redcode is absolutely the key to Red's "mainstreaming" of 4K acquisition.

Mind you, I have little doubt that Arri can hold on to some fraction of the high-end rental market for a very long time, if they play their cards correctly. Avid is still selling its products despite Final Cut, after all. But it can be dangerous to have your offerings relegated to specialty markets while your competitor's products become the standard. And it's really hard to imagine Arri doing the things that would be necessary to prevent that at this point, if Red executes about half of what it has announced.

So it doesn't really matter if some film school DP today or tomorrow is more comfortable with the RED versus an ARRI -- I'm comfortable with Panavision cameras today, which I didn't even use in film school! I used Eclair NPR's mostly, and the Arri-S. Imagine how little my career would have advanced if I told people interviewing me that I was most comfortable using an Eclair NPR...

Sure, well, nobody's silly enough to say "I'm familiar with the 2/3" Scarlet, let's shoot on that". If you spent most of film school shooting on a 2/3" Scarlet, the line will be "I have extensive experience with Red cameras. Let's shoot on Epic." Which the producer probably wanted to do anyway because it was the cheapest high-end option.