Technically, camera sensors don't have color gamut. Compressed video formats (and monitors) do have different color gamuts, but if you shoot in RAW then you are only writing data to your media and then debayering and interpreting that data later. The color pipeline comes into play at this stage. RED's IPP2 color pipeline has an extremely wide color gamut that encompasses nearly all visible colors, however colors can become "out of gamut" depending on which format you are outputting. That said, IPP2 generally handles colors at those extreme edges of the gamut very well-the colorist then later decides how far to push the image. When not shooting in RAW, you want to be able to record in a format with the highest gamut possible to avoid irreversible color clipping and weird banding, and ARRI tends to do a very good job of rendering colors in a softer manner, however this doesn't make the cameras totally immune to clipping when it's debayering and compressing the image in camera. I agree that, out of the box, the RED and ARRI cameras have a very different feel. Most of the color science differences can be negated in post. Ultimately, though, lenses and lighting are going to have a greater impact on the look of your film these days because cameras have gotten so good.
Can 100% agree on lensing and lighting driving most your look nowadays. Lenses are just the new film stock. I know the guys at the Arri showcase put on a great demo for the Arri 35 which goes into the whole Color Gamut thing. Probably just comes down to actually building a proper RGB sensor. With that said, I'm not the most tech based guy haha. I try to keep up with the tech but for cameras, that's near impossible today lol.
It’s 2023 - I witnessed - purely as an enthusiast/viewer of movies - the transition to digital from celluloid - beginning circa 2009. Red led the way - Arri followed (and Panavision’s dominance of “image capture” in Hollywood - in the form of its 35mm motion picture cameras - fell away quite rapidly - also their “digital” equivalents - the Genesis, etc. - couldn’t match Arri’s or Red’s). Red will always have a place in history as the original innovators - I gather Arri leads the pack - in terms of “camera of choice” - for many cinematographers in the movie industry. On a personal note - as a non-professional “doodler” in movie making - Red has a special place in my heart in making the Komodo available at a (“relatively speaking”) very affordable price - used with my existing Canon EF lenses (and a RF adapter with built in ND), I’m capturing some mightily impressive footage !
RED will always have my respect in regards to ingenuity and being more relevant to a consumer market. I’ll always choose Arri for work when given the choice, but RED has gotten a bad rep in recent years. They’re still amazing cameras that can produce amazing images.
There are ways to replicate anything Arri does on any modern Red camera. I mean everything. Like, even the most avid pixel peeper could not tell the difference. It's just a matter of glass filtering and color grading.
100% agree. Although I prefer shooting Arri, I’ll admit it’s mostly a comfort of experience thing, but for me, choosing between the two cameras is a winning battle.
As a commercial boy, Arri is the only one I trust, red just got way worse build quality, performance, and failed during shooting few times, we were lucky that we got 2 of them. On the other hand, we never got any trouble with arri. But guess what I love the most outside of work? fx3 haha, as I grow old, I tend to carry smaller camera and focus more on myself instead of equipment, I feel fx3 already good enough to tell some good story with good image while not gonna to hurt my body or bank. Hopefully arri or BMD can make something such small, bmpcc is to wired to grab and shot, it's a good one, But shape and battery just made me have to sell it, maybe because my hands are too small, I feel way more comforable when holding fx3,grap and go with original battery no rig etc. Don't really trust or like red from my past experience komodo still over priced and all the accessories priced like joke, they thought they are the new Leica in modern day. LMAO
I have also found the need to buy smaller cameras for the sake of our backs lol. I will say, the tank like build of Arri cameras is what sells it for me.
I have to laugh when I hear people repeat what others claim about Arri "skin tones" or "organic colour". The only difference is the choice of LUTS you are using. If both cameras are recording 16bit raw then guess what? The colours will be the same. Thats why studio side by side comparisons look the same until you start punching the ISO and then you start to see differences. Hollywood leaned toward Arri for one reason about 10 years ago when studios told DP's they had to go digital. That reason was simple. They were already shooting Arri film cameras. Its only natural right. But that doesnt mean they are better. Far from it and especially back then.
This is fair. They are definitely “hot” terms for the field, but in my experience (working outside of studios) I do see a difference. With that said, even as an ARRI guy, I believe my best short film was shot on RED, so the camera only matters so much. That much is for sure true. Whatever gets the film made 🤘🏻
Usually cause of the high costs, I do not rent these cameras unless I truly need or want them for my projects. The camera I own now is plenty for everything else.
