Red for the grit, the burn, the texture - dark sci-fi & car ads… ARRI for the smooth, the nuanced, the Skintones, the analog - fantasy, mystery, ads for golf or fashion
Webcam In all seriousness, though, I’d say Arri. There’s no major difference, but Arri certainly has a more analog look that is preferred in most cases, while the red has a slightly more “burnt”/digital look that fits high pace movies well.
I definitely pick RED! More film looking, better color science, extraordinary RAW, hundreds possible ways to use thanks to modular design, more budget friendly and many more.
Arri shoot in 3424 x 2202 and it's gorgeous ^^ It's not about resolution of course. It's about ergonomics, reliability, image, color science. But FX3 is a great camera thought.
@@TLFILMS ergonomics? I can take my fx3 anywhere without having to lug a metric fuckton of rigging gear everywhere. I get the cinema workflow is different but things are changing and I hope the days people using these gigantic monstrosities is coming to an end.
@@idontwanttochooseausername absolutely. You don’t need a $200k price difference for the resolution and color science when there are so many new tools to use these days.
@@idontwanttochooseausername I mean look at how the film industry is dying right now it’s all about stupid cgi with crazy resolution that will make people at least moderately entertained. But the movies being put out these days suck. It’s all about technology and gear making crazier visuals. But I’ve seen test footage between the arri alexa, Sony Venice and the Sony fx3 and it basically looks the exact same to any normal moviegoers. The only people who could tell a difference are pixel peeping douche tubers and that is like .0000000000000000000000000000000001% of the population .
Sure the image is quite similar on iPhone sure it's quite the same, but on a movie theater/decent tv it's not the same. About the ergonomics, yes a ARRI ALEXA Mini is more ergonomic than a FX3 for Movies. On set you have to plug XLR, you need long range Teradek for the video village, you have double/triple operator around the camera, you have to record RAW files for post etc. But yeah for digital content, FX cinema line (FX3/6/9) are very great!
A.I will very soon put out of work these greedy companies. A.I is like having 100 camera operators, editors, cgi artists and unlimited cinematography budget. It will be able to produce cinema scale and quality content with minimal resources. Anyone will be able to produce great movies, not just the rich and greedy.
@@thombrown Not really, AI is already beating every painter and it doesn't matter how old your pc is it can produce a painting that would take a human at least a month to do it. It same as Google vs You searching for information in a linrary, Google can do it in seconds, you'd need years to do it. AI will find or produce and edit footage in minutes.
@@Alan-cl2ix I think that's where you're mistaken. Human expression doesn't appear in any AI "art". It is just a mangling of art it has been fed and its attempt to construct something that matches the same parameters. It might be fine for adverts and the like, but it is merely an inferior copying of styles. AI is soul-less, empty, generated rather than inspired and affected by emotion. And the same goes for acting. You can't come up with something creative just by copying or rehashing what others have done, but slightly changing it and passing it off as your own. You wouldn't come up with a Kubrick film by watching everything that came before him. You wouldn't get Jeff Goldblum by studying all actors before him. AI is limited and not creative. Humans are far more nuanced and complex, with unique perspectives, backgrounds and experiences.
@@thombrown I'm talking more about technical issues, AI will be able to take a video you shot with a comsumer camera and add details, effects, editing etc and make it same as shot with a 100K camera, AI is already manipulating pictures far better than any man can, its like having 100 people work for you. It will have the same impact as computers had when they were invented.
@@Alan-cl2ix You said it would produce cinema and put greedy companies out of work. So this would be replacing creatives (cinematographers, lighting directors, directors, etc.) with AI. That would produce empty unoriginal cinema. Plus, those "greedy companies" you claim it would put out of work wouldn't at all. It would just put creatives out of work and make big companies even greedier. Actually, that's what these writer and actor strikes are partly about.
