[atoav]

Red cameras are overhyped, but picture quality is not the issue. It is very likely that what you describe is more due stylistic differences in lighting, color grading and editing than due to the camera itself — coming from someone who professionally had to match colors on films shot on multiple different cameras on more than one occasion.

Reliability is the main reason why Red cameras are overhyped, but you get good pictures and specs for the price, just like with black magic cameras but a notch higher. Most DOPs I know would go fo ARRI if given free choice.

[weebull]

Red were kinda the Tesla of the film camera world. New name, new tech, new price point, fashionable branding Vs existing long established players.

Thing is ARRI pivoted and covered the new tech pretty well, and had the existing business links into the rental market allowed them to continue unflustered. Red got the layman hype because they seemed to make high quality available to more people at an achievable (but still high) price point. The industry didn't really care though. They rent cameras, not buy them and they were already affording the old stuff.

[rpmisms]

RED does have a nice image pipeline, and some neat stuff like the Komodo. Wish I still had the spare change to get one.

[mikeyouse]

I've seen a handful on my local FB marketplace lately (nowhere near Hollywood or anywhere that you'd expect to see them) but ~$5k for a Epic-X Dragon with a lens.

[johncalvinyoung]

5k for an EPIC-X? Wild. Good thing that that's not local to me, or my bank account would be complaining.

[rpmisms]

The killer would be a Komodo. Global shutter and autofocus is amazing in something that price.

[mikeyouse]

Lol - one posted within range of my search - listed at $6,500 but I bet you could talk them down:

Red Komodo 6k

SmallHD indie 7 with Red control

Red outrigger Handle

2 512GB cards

2 Canon BP-995

4 Jupio BP-975

2 NEO Mini 98wh

SmallRig Handle

BP battery charger

CFast 2.0 card reader

Core SWX Battery Plate

[rpmisms]

That sounds amazing. Please stop before my wife finds out I'm even thinking about this.

[pkwy]

I got a Komodo a few months ago in LA area for $3500 used with multiple cards and gold mount batteries, outrigger handle, pl mount adapter, etc. They’re out there, a lot of people upgrading to the X.

[_fat_santa]

ARRI also has their own "picture style", at least the ARRI Alexa. I remember seeing video on YT where the guy bought a really old ARRI Alexa that was used in Hollywood back in 05 or 06. When they showed some of the footage they took with it, it looked exactly like an mid-2000's big screen movie, I honestly didn't realize those movies even had a "look" until I saw his video.

[tivert]

> I remember seeing video on YT where the guy bought a really old ARRI Alexa that was used in Hollywood back in 05 or 06. When they showed some of the footage they took with it, it looked exactly like an mid-2000's big screen movie, I honestly didn't realize those movies even had a "look" until I saw his video.

Is this the video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hahBgDUESjE

[_fat_santa]

that's the one!

[praisewhitey]

Do you mean the D20? The Alexa wasn't released until 2010

[actionfromafar]

Most movies in 2005 were film. So the style in 2005 was the film look. Collateral (2004) was the first major movie shot on video and it's got a very different look and the tech was so new, Tom Cruise had to wear a certain shade of gray suite so as to not blow the highlights in some of the scenes.

[IndySun]

https://www.tvtechnology.com/news/thomson-grass-valleys-vipe...

[caycep]

I suppose this is another illustration of "defaults are powerful"

[hef19898]

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]

The 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.

[lanthade]

I 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]

After 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.

[ensignavenger]

When 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?

[sebben]

I work as a director of photography and own an Alexa Mini.

Reliability in this context means that the camera will record and the footage will not be corrupted on the media.

Film sets are very rough on equipment and things break all the time. Sometimes one films in very harsh conditions that anre either very cold or very dusty and hot. Often you don’t have the luxury of being able to repeat a moment or you have travelled to very remote locations so having gear that will continue to work is worth paying a huge premium for.

The Arri sensors and imaging pipeline also offer the best overall image quality. This means it can handle very high dynamic range scenes better than all other cameras. For example the new Alexa35 sensor can record 11f stops of information above middle grey. Most prosumer video cameras can record above and below middle grey around 12 stops total with most of the information in the shadows.

It also means consistent image quality in different shooting environments. Arri has very sophisticated cooling to keep the camera sensor within a specified temperature for consistent noise performance.

Because Arri make more than just cameras it also means that the camera fits into the whole professional eco system and synergises with other pieces of filmmaking equipment like the Arri wireless focus systems, camera remote heads etc etc. Meaning you can focus on the hard bit which is creating amazing stories.

[ensignavenger]

Thank you, this was exactly the sort of elaboration I was looking for.

[kaczordon]

The Alexa does not have 11 stops of info above middle grey. More like 6-7 at most.

[mschuster91]

Speaking for lighting: all of it. ARRI stuff is expensive AF but worth every penny if you have the need for it.

[staticautomatic]

Is 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?

[Auracle]

Broncolor 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.

[atoav]

In 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]

In the end it's reproducibility for both - you know that when you have a specific setup, it will look exactly the same.

[jorvi]

> 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.

[hef19898]

Thanks! 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.

[geodel]

> 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.

[julik]

FWIW "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.

[hef19898]

The only thing more hilarious than the pointless Canon vs. Nikon quabble are when you throw in Leica shooters into the mix.

[ein0p]

Are there any? I think 99.9% of them are Leica “owners” rather than “shooters”. You can’t even properly manually focus on a 60mp sensor with a rangefinder.

[hef19898]

I think we shouldn't go there! ;-)

[emilecantin]

I'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.

[royjacobs]

I 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.

[Joeboy]

In 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]

ARRI 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]

Yup, 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.

[onebot]

ARRI 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]

Is it the sensor? I though it was the processing.

[MaxPengwing]

Yes. 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-wh...

[sebben]

You 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

[xattt]

Probably reproducibility and consistency.

[anigbrowl]

Yes, and it's worth every penny.

[julik]

This. RED cameras are overhyped for a few reasons:

- They were once the "hot startup" promising acceptable resolution (filmic 4K when nobody needed it, everything was 2K at most). But they oversold resolution at the cost of bizarrely slow-to-decompress proprietary RAW format and some loss to image quality, and stayed true to that. Arri came to market later and they did the right thing - picked convenience and stability over super-duper-extra-super-high-res. - Their cameras would routinely overheat - Cameras would have severe reliability issues with software updates - Some haptics/controls felt wanky at times - They wanted hard to sell you "just the body", for "cheap cheap cheap", but it meant that to have something usable you would need the whole loadout - which would ship in pieces, with periods of delay for availability, and the quality of some components would be meh. Want an EVF? Wait 2 years for one to ship. Want functioning grip? Separate. Want etc. etc.? Separate. I.e. they were very inviting to "now you, as a DOP, can finally own a camera", but owning "the camera and the kit required for it - sans lenses" would be a painful proposition.

This was certainly the case in 2006-2010s, dunno if it has gotten much better lately. It does seem that RED kept to the theme of severely overselling their users extreme picture resolutions, at the cost of having the files super-painful to process, proprietary codecs, and lackings in other areas such as dynamic range.