Talk:Arri

camera lines revert
I've reverted the edit to the camera lines. In brief, the edit turned it into reverse-chronological order, and further attempted to separate the lines into current and older lines. Both edits have been reverted because:
 * 1) Chronological order is normal accepted style for encyclopedic information. There is no compelling interest, IMHO, to reverse this anymore than there is to write the company's history in such a manner.
 * 2) There is no good way to distinguish between current lines and older ones. Arri 2Cs are still very commonly used as portable MOS or crash-cams; the Arri III still is commonly used and rented out, etc. The SR line was erroneously listed there, even though the 416 line has barely seen any professional usage due to the fact that few have been released yet. This line alone is guaranteed to maintain market leadership for at least several more years, to say nothing of the SR high speed cameras which have not in any way been made obsolete by a future model. It may be possible to distinguish based on the cameras Arri lists on their website, but that would only evaluate Arri sales. Arri rental houses still regularly rent out models all the way back to the 2C and III, so clearly that part of the company would call them current lines. Moviecam, as well, is technically a "dead" line since it was bought out by Arri, but the cameras are still top of the line and are in constant usage by feature films going through rental houses, including Arri. Therefore, I'd say it's very problematic at the least to distinguish the camera lines in that way. You'd also have the exact same problem were one to attempt it with the Panavision models. Professional movie cameras generally take a long time to become fully obsolete. Girolamo Savonarola 17:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * These are good points, thanks for notifying me personally. My biggest problem with the current article is that it starts with two cameras that are about 80 years old. I'm often quickly scanning through articles, and when I see that, I think "ok, that's a list of old museum stuff, let's skip this part" - and I don't see the interesting newer cameras. You're right that it's more encyclopedic, I just feel it makes it less "accessible" for todays people. What do you think? If you don't think that's a valid point, then ok, I'm happy to leave the list as it is.


 * And another thing: I found a camera on the Arri website that is not in the list, the "Arriflex 16 SR3 Advanced". Shouldn't we add this camera to the list, too?
 * Thanks for your forthcoming handling of the revert! :-) Cheers, Peter S. 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a complaint I also often hear regarding how the order filmographies. The problem, as I see it, is that it's a unjustifiable idea from the perspective of the project. That may be my POV, too, but I've yet to see a plausible systematic argument in favor of reverse-order, only an appeal to emotion. In the case of filmographies, personally I blame the IMDb for subconsciously making people expect a filmography in that order. But the IMDb, for example, is oriented to make money off of current films. Business-wise it would be foolhardy for them to run it chronologically. That's fine for them, but our priorities are towards keeping informational order to things. Would it make sense to list operating systems in reverse chronological order, for instance? Or generally any timeline of data? I'm certainly open to the argument, but I can't think of anything justifying it. Seems like an iteration of recentism. Anyway, that's a lot more than I intended to say, so sorry for the blathering... :)


 * The SR3 Advanced is part of the SR line. There's also an SR1, SR2, SR2/E, SR2 HS, SR3 HS... I was actually in the process of writing that article until a short while ago. Hopefully I'll have time to finish it soon! Thanks for your comments and look forward to any future ones. Girolamo Savonarola 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

is it true that Arri made sewing machines before they made cameras? I can't find any history on it.

Name of article
The company's website suggests that its name is ARRI, not Arri. ARRI is used throughout the site, and not just in their logo. &mdash; Paul G 14:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOSTM. Girolamo Savonarola 08:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias tag
I'm a bit befuddled by the tag. While the article is certainly lacking in sufficient size for its given topic, I don't see anything within the text to bias either for or against the company - it simply states what its products were/are and compares their business model against Panavision without any value judgments. I'd like to hear some specific problems with the article, if that's alright. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The first line in the article states "The Arri Group has been the largest world wide supplier of high quality motion picture film equipment since 1917". While the sentence structure, etc is good, the words High Quality bug me. Who is to say they are of high quality? It could be the company themselves writing this article > a potential consumer reads this article > potential customer is swayed by the words High Quality > Customer purchases Arri product over the product of a competitor, possibly finding out that in actual fact the Arri product is not superior; this would bring the article and indeed undermine the consumer's faith in Wikipedia. This is my take on it anyways, although I'm often wrong! Michaeldouglas26 19:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. In many cases, I would find it completely warranted. However, in the case of motion picture film equipment, there are very few companies in the game - for film cameras, there is only Arri, Panavision, and Aaton at the moment. And the requirements of the professional gear make high-quality essential; most of these cameras are precision-machined to thousandths of inches. I don't think that there are many industry professionals - even from their competitors - who would disagree with the statement. Girolamo Savonarola 21:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh right, I was thrown awry by the High Quality words. Thanks for explaining it, i'll remove the Bias tag now. Michaeldouglas26 13:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Arri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515210519/http://www.cinematechnic.com/resources/index.html to http://cinematechnic.com/resources/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Arri Music Group
Arri Music Group is a Record Label Company founded in 1958 by Arri.

Editor's Note: Some of them are FICTIONAL
Arri Music Group is Acquired for USD$6.6million in cash and stock in 1985 by Universal Music Group.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:F9DC:2EE1:CAC9:4C7B (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Arri PL redirects here
IMHO the Arri PL-mount deserves its own article like many other mounts and as it was prior to 2022. But if you decide to redirect it here, you should at least have a paragraph about it here.--2A02:810A:11BF:AC50:6B08:E4A0:5EBE:175A (talk) 12:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)