Jump to content


Photo

Arri buying DALSA camera division


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 31 October 2008 - 04:28 AM

Comments?

http://www.fxguide.c...sa-sold-to-arri

Gunleik
  • 0

#2 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 01 November 2008 - 03:33 PM

Interesting. In market driven economics, big fish tend to swallow small fish. It really may be the best thing for Dalsa, as Arri has the know-how, infrastructure and technology to incorporate Dalsa' sensors to their camera bodies and make the best of both. They did something similar with Moviecam.

I wonder who may want to buy RED.

Edited by Saul Rodgar, 01 November 2008 - 03:37 PM.

  • 0

#3 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2008 - 05:53 PM

Dalsa never was good at the rental 'game', they're better at hard-core engineering, building chips, leaving the marketing BS and funny accounting to others.

More advanced chips will make current digital cameras obsolete, why would anyone with business sense want to keep mediocre performing digital cameras on the overhead spreadsheet, when the latest, greatest whiz bang items can be charged a bomb for?
  • 0

#4 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 02 November 2008 - 12:42 AM

Dalsa never was good at the rental 'game', they're better at hard-core engineering, building chips, leaving the marketing BS and funny accounting to others.


Well i think the problem is that they only had one rental office. If you don't live there then how are you supossed to rent the gear ?

And LA is actually not the centre of the universe....

jb
  • 0

#5 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2008 - 01:55 AM

Well i think the problem is that they only had one rental office. If you don't live there then how are you supossed to rent the gear ?

And LA is actually not the centre of the universe....

jb



Ha ha not the center of known universe but if you want to get a film, tv show made, no other place on the planet has the infrastructure to get it done. the sheer number of tv shows, movies (when there are no strikes), etc is unmatched. it really is an "industry", if someone doesn't have, they know who will, you can get custom parts machined and built in a few days.

i heard via 3rd person, the camera only shot a few commercials, few SFX shots, no features, it is too big and bulky for any work outside the studio even though it was a "true" 4k camera.

with panavision basically across the street, no wonder arri bought them up when PV bought the Phantom.

now sony with their F35, should make things interesting.
  • 0

#6 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2008 - 02:01 AM

google map these

PV
6219 De Soto Ave
Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Dalsa
6160 Variel Ave
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
  • 0

#7 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 02 November 2008 - 09:02 AM

Ha ha not the center of known universe but if you want to get a film, tv show made, no other place on the planet has the infrastructure to get it done.



Ahh. Sure. If you want to make shows or films the way *hollywood* makes films.

jb
  • 0

#8 Saul Rodgar

Saul Rodgar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1682 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 02 November 2008 - 02:13 PM

A good move by Arri would be designing completely upgradeable-architecture cameras, so that anything from the sensors to the electronics and the storage device could easily be swapped at the shop when the camera reaches the (perpetual) digital technology obsolescence level.
  • 0

#9 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 02 November 2008 - 05:13 PM

It is sad, the camera is an extremely good camera, I would argue the best video camera on the market currently, period.

The Origin was definitely too big for a lot of people, though they just started making the Evolution available. This camera, though far from tiny, was around the size of a 535 and was not heavy at all. I feel like this came at a strange time because the camera seemed like it was starting to come into its own.

My understanding is that they were actually doing pretty well with the other aspects of the rental biz as far as keeping their F900s, Varicams, etc. working. Though, I am sure the numbers were not adding up for the Dalsa Corp., I feel like if they waited maybe another 6 months to a year, they could have seen some good movement forward.

I like the people and the digital cinema part of the company a lot, I worked with them a lot, and I do think its a shame that things went this way with them.

This thing with Arri could be good in some ways I suppose, it is definitely a smart move for Arri. I guess we can just see what happens and how things change over there.

Kevin Zanit
  • 0

#10 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2008 - 08:15 PM

Ahh. Sure. If you want to make shows or films the way *hollywood* makes films.

jb


Surpringsingly not the way it is, my film is completely different in every way of how to make a film. It is the most UN-Hollywood film made in Hollywood. Most companies and people in the "biz" can really appreciate what a struggle it is for the little guy with no commercial backing to make a film and I've had help from many, many people and companies either gratis or "family" rates.
  • 0

#11 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2008 - 08:16 PM

It is sad, the camera is an extremely good camera, I would argue the best video camera on the market currently, period.

The Origin was definitely too big for a lot of people, though they just started making the Evolution available. This camera, though far from tiny, was around the size of a 535 and was not heavy at all. I feel like this came at a strange time because the camera seemed like it was starting to come into its own.

My understanding is that they were actually doing pretty well with the other aspects of the rental biz as far as keeping their F900s, Varicams, etc. working. Though, I am sure the numbers were not adding up for the Dalsa Corp., I feel like if they waited maybe another 6 months to a year, they could have seen some good movement forward.

I like the people and the digital cinema part of the company a lot, I worked with them a lot, and I do think its a shame that things went this way with them.

This thing with Arri could be good in some ways I suppose, it is definitely a smart move for Arri. I guess we can just see what happens and how things change over there.

Kevin Zanit


So what did you shoot with the Dalsa gear? From what I saw the 4k camera was as big as a dog house.

Arri always seems a bit arrogant in my dealings with them.

So now there are really two big players PV and Arri. What is Sony bringing to the table besides F23 and F35?

Whatever happened to that Genesis debacle?

Edited by Glen Alexander, 02 November 2008 - 08:20 PM.

  • 0

#12 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 02 November 2008 - 08:24 PM

"So what did you shoot with the Dalsa gear? From what I saw the 4k camera was as big as a dog house. "

Nothing more than tests, didn't have the right project for the camera.

I agree, the Origin was too big for most circumstances. For stage work its fine, but for a lot of practical location work it was too big.

The Evolution though was much more practical in size. As I said, about the size of a 535 or a Panaflex GII or Platinum with a 1000' mag in studio mode. Not an Eyemo but certainly not a Technicolor camera either.

I have done plenty of other jobs through Dalsa, renting F900s, their Phantom, etc. I like the people there, and their gear was always in great shape. They were always willing to help me out.

Kevin Zanit
  • 0

#13 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 02 November 2008 - 08:41 PM

For years video people have been dreaming of taking over film. And one day, someone realized that with marketing gimmicks such as 24P, you could convince the bread and circus that they could. And to this day most all video cameras still look like ENG video cameras even though they contain all the gimmicks anyone needs to make faux film. One day not too long ago, someone realized that the only gimmick missing was making a video camera physically look more like a film camera. That would seperate the men from the boys. Of course the reality is that 95% of all professional video cameras today are still used only for video, so while the marketing gimmicks had potential, they really had limited growth as they only had a very small audience. Then another person said, "We can make it too!" And they did. Today you have a few high end companies making very limited runs of the most high end video cameras, and one small one that is using marketing to convince the world that they are big too! But all of these players play to a very small niche. And because that niche is not growing nor will much more than it is, many of them have found that real growth beyond a few cameras, or a few hundred production run is limiting. And unless you also make cameras for the other 95%, survival and growth are difficult at best. It's one of the reasons Dalsa uses "diluted EPS" in the press release. Another marketing trick for investors. Sure you could say you have a big family if you sat down and connected every relative you never even met, but the reality is your real family lies somewhere between you and a partner and your immediate close relatives. So while all these cool cameras sound pretty cool, the reality is you probalby have more hairs on one hand than these companies make cameras as a whole and investors don't invest in dead ends.
  • 0

#14 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 02 November 2008 - 09:57 PM

I talked with a personal friend who is and has been heavily involved in the industry for many years, after the HD Expo, he expects that video will take over TV production in 3 to 5 years and 10 years for theatrical releases if the exec/suits only look at the superficial bottom line costs.
  • 0

#15 John Brawley

John Brawley
  • Sustaining Members
  • 834 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Atlanta Georgia

Posted 03 November 2008 - 02:29 AM

Surpringsingly not the way it is, my film is completely different in every way of how to make a film. It is the most UN-Hollywood film made in Hollywood. Most companies and people in the "biz" can really appreciate what a struggle it is for the little guy with no commercial backing to make a film and I've had help from many, many people and companies either gratis or "family" rates.



C'mon Glenn. It's getting a bit tiring. Every film that's not a studio film takes a huge amount of personal dedication help form many people doing mates' rates and family chipping in. You're not the first and you won't be the last.

My whole point was that there's a whole other world out there and lots and lots of people are making films outside of the hollywood / studio system. How was Dalsa ever going to survive with one rental office ?

Most of those films are non-commercial.

Hardly any australian made features actually make any money at the BO. This is so 'off' the topic that was being discussed.

And Im so sick of hearing that video is going to take over. You're unsubstantiated claim by *some* friend is pretty meaningless when talking to the audience here. We're aware of cinema technologies. It's in our job description.

In 1993 the Sony rep told me that 16mm was dead because of a new format called digital betacam. It was going to kill 16mm for commercials and drama.

In 1992 everyone asked me why I was still using apple computers because they were about to go bust...

sooo tiring......

jb



jb
  • 0

#16 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 03 November 2008 - 06:19 AM

The question of "Hollywood-like" vs "non-Hollywood-like" productions is an interesting one, though.

In Norway Sony hasn't sold one F23, I know there's a Viper, 4 Varicams and a couple of SI's here, and about 60 REDs. No Panavision, Dalsa or Arri digital cameras to my awareness.

Nevertheless 5 (or more) features have been shot/os shot on RED since february + 2 TV series for national broadcast - that I am aware off.

Thing is that in smaller markets where budgets are lower and gear is a much higher percentage of the budget than actors, these new technologies have a much higher market penetration than in places where gear is a less demanding part of the budget equation.

Add to that that most/all filmcopies are made with a cinevator and all projects are finished @ 2k or 1080, RED just seems to fit the bill. And this seems to be the case in a lot of places - outside Hollywood.

I am not claiming this or that about quality here - 'cept RED being better than most HD cameras and I have seen stutter in D-21 images, too... But for Arri/Sony/Panavisio/Dalsa to compete in these smaller markets (which volume wise pump out at least as many productions as hollywood worldwide) they have to come up with a similar or apporachable cost/quality equation to the one RED has put on the table.

Post for any of these cameras, is a bitch - compared to video, but quite easy compared to film.
For the productions I mention, it's not really an issue, as that cost already was there.

So the interesting part (to me, living in Norway, not Hollywood) is how Sony/Panavision/Arri meet my kind of market...
The move of merging ARRI/Dalsa seems a smart one. If Panavision/Sony did the same thing, it would only make sense.
And then it is interesting if any of these guys look at me as a potentional customer.
RED sure did, and I have to admit I apprechiate it...
And to me, that's what it boils down to.
  • 0

#17 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 03 November 2008 - 11:21 AM

So many non-facts fly about on forums.

Panavision did not buy Phantom. Vision Research is the manufacturer of the Phantom line, which has many camera models, most of which are for industrial purposes. Panavision purchased a number of Phantom HD cameras from Abel Cine Tech, my employer. All three companies will work closely together for the future to support this technology, but no company purchased another, just the products and services. And Panavision is not the only camera rental facility that carries the Phantom HD, although it is by far the largest. It should be noted that among others, Dalsa owned a Phantom HD for rental.

As to a "Genesis debacle," I can't imagine what you're talking about. There are a lot of these camera out and they're all working all the time. many TV series, commercials and feature films are shot on them. Debacle indeed.
  • 0

#18 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 03 November 2008 - 03:05 PM

I wonder who may want to buy RED.

Why would it be for sale? Jim Jannard has plenty of money, and obviously enjoys having it.




-- J.S.
  • 0

#19 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2008 - 08:52 PM

sooo tiring......

jb


well jb, my friend was with kodak for 26 years, pacific title for another 10 years saw birth of video and digital and seen impact on film distribution. he saw pac title go from 2 shifts and all optical tables down to 1 table and part-time operation. i think he has been around probably longer than you and more experience in the distribution end of who is shooting what, where, and when.

can you say the same?
  • 0

#20 Glen Alexander

Glen Alexander
  • Guests

Posted 03 November 2008 - 09:06 PM

Panavision purchased a number of Phantom HD cameras from Abel Cine Tech, my employer.

As to a "Genesis debacle," I can't imagine what you're talking about. There are a lot of these camera out and they're all working all the time. many TV series, commercials and feature films are shot on them. Debacle indeed.


If you call the US government spook (DoD, CIA, etc) agencies "industrial purposes", ok.

As stated Panavision bought Phantom (cameras), you even state this. I didn't say they bought Vision Research, the US government would kill that deal immediately. They like having the latest and greatest sensors fresh from the R&D labs.

Yes debacle, where is keith walters????

Debacle as is which version the one from 2004? one or previous initial 16mm version? which even Lucas, king of things digital and artifical didn't like.

even wikipedia roasts the problems with Genesis

http://en.wikipedia....is_(Panavision)

I was curious as to what is going on, if Sony/PV are going to dump the Genesis now in favor of F23/F35 or the Phantom line.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Rig Wheels Passport

FJS International, LLC

The Slider

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Willys Widgets

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Technodolly

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CineTape

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Willys Widgets

Tai Audio

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Wooden Camera

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Opal

Rig Wheels Passport

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Paralinx LLC

CineLab

rebotnix Technologies

CineTape

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post