The ARRI camera phone

[Emanuel A Guedes]

  

 

More here, there and also over there to include the new 200mm & 500mm teleconverters.

 

EAG :- )

[Tyler Purcell]

Yep Arri is officially done. This is the stuff you do before you go out of business. 

[Fabian Schreyer]

Isn't this just the same as what Zeiss and Leica have been doing for ages?

[Aapo Lettinen]

Oh it is like the Trump Phone but for Arri fanboys😂 made in China of course to make it legit collectible😁

[Tyler Purcell]

5 hours ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

Isn't this just the same as what Zeiss and Leica have been doing for ages?

Zeiss and Leica have successful businesses tho. Both companies make equipment for other industries outside of entertainment. 

[Brandon Paterno]

yeah exactly. arri has no hands in other industries. they just keep thinning their herd… 

not too many cinema camera companies sit as independently as arri does right now, correct me if i’m wrong. most of the legacies are majority owned by private shareholders or have interests in other industries: nikon, canon, sony, zeiss, leica (leitz), panasonic, and every name that videndum has under its umbrella 

[Jon O'Brien]

They hopped onboard the dig revolution so thoroughly that it surprised me.

Now the seams are showing in the digital world. Cracks are appearing in the leatherette finish.

Arri video is supposed to have a much better colour science and roll-off but I can't really see enough people caring. It's like how hardly anyone cares whether it's film or video. Viva la Revolution.

Shhhhhwwwoooooooooosh .... THUMP .... clunk.

 

[Jon O'Brien]

It's over, dudes.

With the fall of Arri to this level, the game is up.

The digital revolution is officially over.

Digital, otherwise known as video, will not be the replacement for cinema film as we were told it would be, for years.

The technological advance has ceased. The money has dried up because people aren't buying enough cameras anymore to feed the revolution. Digital video is stuck where it is and it won't be looking any better than someone can modify it using Davinci or something similar.

It's finished. Digital got as good as it's going to be. Phone video will get better. Just a bit more. But it's over.

[Jon O'Brien]

What will the technical luvvies do now, at the annual camera shows?

[Jon O'Brien]

5 minutes ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Digital, otherwise known as video, will not be the replacement for cinema film as we were told it would be, for years.

An alternative, yes, but not a replacement.

[Tyler Purcell]

4 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

The technological advance has ceased. The money has dried up because people aren't buying enough cameras anymore to feed the revolution. Digital video is stuck where it is and it won't be looking any better than someone can modify it using Davinci or something similar.

I mean to be fair, Arri's best cameras weren't even available for purchase, I don't know if you knew that. The Alexa 65 and Alexa 265 are both "rental house only" cameras. So they aren't exactly making cameras for anyone, they were ONLY making cameras for the top people in the industry. Last time I checked, it's an industry that's dying so fast, two of the last three major studio's just got bought out to be shut down. 

So I wouldn't say anything has stopped, Arri's business model was singularly focused on the very top of the business, no other camera company has done that with modern digital cinema. 

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Jon O'Brien said:

Now the seams are showing in the digital world. Cracks are appearing in the leatherette finish.

The entire planet is heading for a global recession that we haven't seen since the last Great Depression. The cost of doing business and developing new product has increased by roughly 200% in the last 2 years alone, up around 3x prior to covid. Inflation even in Asian countries is extremely high since covid. Then you add the huge memory costs, lithography machine time, even the cost of oil to make plastics, everything today is grossly expensive. Thus, companies need to make decisions on what to release, what will actually sell and what won't. This is why everyone has pumped the breaks on new products, not just with cameras, but also computer tech. Even Apple who owns a vested interest in TSMC, can't get the machine time to make their new M5 chips and orders are 17 weeks behind right now. 

I wouldn't blame the digital world at all, there are already millions of fantastic cameras on the market. If anything, it means the value of cameras will stay pretty flat because there will simply be less ones available. 

As a side note, one of the most popular Arri film cameras, the 435 has eprom issues that are not resolvable. Arri used eprom's that are designed to last 15 years. So we are seeing (industry wide) failures that we've never seen before, where the FPGA's aren't holding programming properly. This can't be fixed easily, as the code would need to be pulled from the soldered on eprom's and then put into new eprom's and then soldered back on again. So sure, one could argue these cameras are 30 years old and that potentially no digital cinema camera will last THAT long. However, there are no new commercial film cameras in mass production, so going off on digital as if what's happening to the tech is positive, is kind of infuriating. 

We're a few short years away from not even being able to afford the film FOR our cameras at the current rate of global inflation. Forget about keeping them working. 

At least with a digital camera, I can always just buy a new body, leave it in the box for years until I need it. Media is easy to deal with as well. Manufacturers are coming online early 2027 to fix the storage and eventually ram issues. 

Edited Sunday at 07:02 AM by Tyler Purcell

[Fabian Schreyer]

On 10/4/2026 at 9:01 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

As a side note, one of the most popular Arri film cameras, the 435 has eprom issues that are not resolvable. Arri used eprom's that are designed to last 15 years. So we are seeing (industry wide) failures that we've never seen before, where the FPGA's aren't holding programming properly. This can't be fixed easily, as the code would need to be pulled from the soldered on eprom's and then put into new eprom's and then soldered back on again.

To be honest, as someone who works a lot with electronics on a component level, this seems to be fixable quite easily, if the data can still be read (or you have backup data from a working camera). Might be an issue of course if there is camera-specific calibration data on it that cannot be reconstructed. 

[Tyler Purcell]

36 minutes ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

To be honest, as someone who works a lot with electronics on a component level, this seems to be fixable quite easily, if the data can still be read (or you have backup data from a working camera). Might be an issue of course if there is camera-specific calibration data on it that cannot be reconstructed. 

Yes, if you want to risk damaging a good board to de-solder the eprom, then you're right. The problem is it's risky. I don't know anyone willing to make that risk yet... maybe in the future, but not now. I for sure wouldn't attempt potentially damaging a working camera. 

[Aapo Lettinen]

On 10/4/2026 at 10:01 AM, Tyler Purcell said:

 

At least with a digital camera, I can always just buy a new body, leave it in the box for years until I need it. Media is easy to deal with as well. Manufacturers are coming online early 2027 to fix the storage and eventually ram issues. 

Electronics don't like very long storage and may actually detoriorate faster than if in light constant use. Especially electrolytic capacitors. There can be dozens of them in a digital camera. Storing it for 10 years and then switching on can very well release the magic smoke and render it useless, or it may just be so much out of specs that does not just work correctly. Memory batteries also ruined which causes additional issues. Repairing digital cameras is much more difficult than film camera electronics. Tons more parts and they are super tiny and replacements likely not available and one would ruin the boards if trying manual repairs.

The only reliable way to keep any camera running is to be able to replace all components and the board bases too if needed. The camera electronics need to be specifically designed for that. None of the commercially available is. Not film, not digital. It needs to be specifically made that way

[Tyler Purcell]

1 hour ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

Electronics don't like very long storage and may actually detoriorate faster than if in light constant use. Especially electrolytic capacitors.

Well sure, I mean I'm not talking about something sitting for 50 years, I'm talking about 2 - 5 years or so. 

[Fabian Schreyer]

8 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

Yes, if you want to risk damaging a good board to de-solder the eprom, then you're right. The problem is it's risky. I don't know anyone willing to make that risk yet... maybe in the future, but not now. I for sure wouldn't attempt potentially damaging a working camera. 

Makes sense, especially if that is something that you do not do on a daily basis. But I would suggest that you try to find some experienced technician who does component level repair and just hand this kind of work to them. Should not be too hard in a city like LA. 

[Brandon Paterno]

there are a lot of nonfunctional camera boards floating around that are damaged for other reasons that would be good candidates for reverse engineering. mostly at rental houses etc… 

i think though the ROM is the least concerning failure point — like aapo said, on the higher end cameras electrolytics are volatile, typically surface mount (!!), and everywhere. Same with tantalum caps that tend to fail/short suddenly. and the boards themselves sometimes open traces. diodes fail, fets fail, coils and transformers fail open, and possibly concerningly many of the discrete logic ICs have been out of production and are difficult to source. 

Edited yesterday at 12:19 PM by Brandon Paterno

[Aapo Lettinen]

I think the biggest issue with film camera gear electronics maintenance is that shooting with film cameras is mostly half hobby half side work, budgets often small-ish, the cameras see very irregular work, one weights very carefully if non-working gear would be immediately repaired or if it gets on top shelf for years. It is signifiant financial burden to maintain them properly and when they are not regularly used one thinks at least 5 times before getting it repaired properly for huge cost. Almost always it is quick fixes instead to get it working just a little while more again, but not really solving the reliability issue and it will do it again relatively soon.

This kind of low-budget irregularly shooting user base does not allow it to maintain a fast professional reliable support network for camera electronics and that we have seen for years now. People being screwed by failing aging control boards and there is basically no professional repair network to get them fixed quickly, it is more like people desperately trying to find anyone who has made a duct tape diy fix to it once, maybe they could get the camera working again just for a month more. 

There needs to be more money and regular camera use involved to be able to build the infrastructure for the electronics boards again. Half of it goes to fixing the existing old boards if that is needed, the other half goes to developing entirely new control electronics from scratch which takes years but has the benefit of being able to make it easier to repair and more future proof. If you want a reliable board you need to use all-new parts, you can't just replace one component on 70's circuit board and expect it to be reliable-as-new.

The real issue is that there is no money in the camera electronics designing business. The only somewhat profitable area is the mechanical repairs and cla to old cameras. The people offering any kind of repair for camera electronics get the money from mechanical service and video tap installation and the control electronics repair or crystal sync motor modifications are just a way to draw more customers in for the profitable video tap + cla work.

I am like the only one in the World just making crystal sync electronics and nothing else. And it shows because I seem to be the only poor tech who has to work 7 day weeks and never having vacation and still struggling to get enough money for food. Does not make it very encouraging for anyone else to try design electronics for cameras 😅 

[Tyler Purcell]

8 hours ago, Fabian Schreyer said:

Makes sense, especially if that is something that you do not do on a daily basis. But I would suggest that you try to find some experienced technician who does component level repair and just hand this kind of work to them. Should not be too hard in a city like LA. 

I couldn't ever talk a client into it. 

[Tyler Purcell]

7 hours ago, Brandon Paterno said:

on the higher end cameras electrolytics are volatile, typically surface mount (!!), and everywhere.

But capacitors are easy to replace, piece of cake. We have boxes of new capacitors and replace them like water.
The board failures we see are not related to capacitors. The film cameras and digital cameras are low voltage. Electrolytic's generally fail when they aren't used for extremely long periods of time or are close to their maximum voltage capacity. You don't really get those issues with working cameras. 

Arri used eprom's (or whatever device that stores the program) which had a 15 year shelf life. This is why the 435's are having the same issues all over the world. The FPGA is not being programmed properly. The funny thing is, I have a 235 here right now with a programming error as well, but it DOES work fine. I think that's because it's a single motor design, where the 435 is a multi-motor design. 

Most of the modern cameras use FPGA's, but the later generation 16mm Arri and Aaton cameras have socked EPROM's. So they're way easier to pull the program off. I actually have a stash of EPROM's for the Aaton cameras. 

I don't believe this issue transcends generations, I think it was a EPROM problem with the 435 base and 435 ES models only. The Advanced models don't seem to have this issue. 

Edited 23 hours ago by Tyler Purcell

[Tyler Purcell]

6 hours ago, Aapo Lettinen said:

I am like the only one in the World just making crystal sync electronics and nothing else. And it shows because I seem to be the only poor tech who has to work 7 day weeks and never having vacation and still struggling to get enough money for food. Does not make it very encouraging for anyone else to try design electronics for cameras 😅 

Yea, this was a lesson I learned in the mid 90's as a teenager working in the repair business. 

It's better to always go after the higher end market, than the lower end market.

[Brandon Paterno]

2 hours ago, Tyler Purcell said:

But capacitors are easy to replace, piece of cake. We have boxes of new capacitors and replace them like water.
The board failures we see are not related to capacitors. The film cameras and digital cameras are low voltage. Electrolytic's generally fail when they aren't used for extremely long periods of time or are close to their maximum voltage capacity. You don't really get those issues with working cameras. 

Arri used eprom's (or whatever device that stores the program) which had a 15 year shelf life. This is why the 435's are having the same issues all over the world. The FPGA is not being programmed properly. The funny thing is, I have a 235 here right now with a programming error as well, but it DOES work fine. I think that's because it's a single motor design, where the 435 is a multi-motor design. 

Most of the modern cameras use FPGA's, but the later generation 16mm Arri and Aaton cameras have socked EPROM's. So they're way easier to pull the program off. I actually have a stash of EPROM's for the Aaton cameras. 

I don't believe this issue transcends generations, I think it was a EPROM problem with the 435 base and 435 ES models only. The Advanced models don't seem to have this issue. 

interesting… eeproms typically have a good fifteen years on them before they lose info. but use/number of times accessed play a role too. but they can be backed up fairly easily depending on the type. one doesn’t need to remove an ic to dupe it, at least in regards to generally any memory/rom before the 2000s. the eeproms themselves are likely not anything particularly bespoke either (save for the data)

Arri will never release the source code for any of their cameras for many reasons — one being that there is a nonzero chance that the code and compiled source is just straight up gone and lost to time. And if they dupe the compiled instructions from any sort of eeprom they surely wouldn’t share it. and then when they dissolve the ip will go with it. that is if it isn’t acquired to become a handful of cute little tchotchkes for the shelf of an Honor or Transvideo or Nikon exec

some sort of digital archive of reverse engineered cam layouts and architectures will probably happen in ten years or so but as a byproduct of cataloging and archiving digital cameras which in itself will probably be a byproduct of something dark. i think. lalala

[Aapo Lettinen]

3 minutes ago, Brandon Paterno said:

interesting… eeproms typically have a good fifteen years on them before they lose info. but use/number of times accessed play a role too. but they can be backed up fairly easily depending on the type. one doesn’t need to remove an ic to dupe it, at least in regards to generally any memory/rom before the 2000s. the eeproms themselves are likely not anything particularly bespoke either (save for the data)

Arri will never release the source code for any of their cameras for many reasons — one being that there is a nonzero chance that the code and compiled source is just straight up gone and lost to time. And if they dupe the compiled instructions from any sort of eeprom they surely wouldn’t share it. and then when they dissolve the ip will go with it. that is if it isn’t acquired to become a handful of cute little tchotchkes for the shelf of an Honor or Transvideo or Nikon exec

some sort of digital archive of reverse engineered cam layouts and architectures will probably happen in ten years or so but as a byproduct of cataloging and archiving digital cameras which in itself will probably be a byproduct of something dark. i think. lalala

It happens with all products after the demand disappears. The support/service infrastructure disappears almost overnight. No one cares at that point but they WILL care later when running out of spare parts and there is no one around able to make them anymore. It is the same with pro gear than with consumer electronics:  two or three years and the whole support infrastructure is gone. 

There is no good solution for this other than lowering the complexity of the products and making them "more prosumer style" so that it is easier to redesign parts of it with limited resources after the original support is gone. Less parts, less features, off-the-shelf components, everything split to small modular boards which can be redesigned and replaced individually. 

Making it higher quality won't help, it will fail eventually and will be much more difficult to repair and prohibitively expensive to replace. The single factory in the World making the special motor drive or processor it need is long gone and it cannot be repaired without that special order part. If it would be made of cheaper materials there is a good chance that some NOS part could be found or there still is a similar style part available from some other manufacturer which still exists. 

-----

One can't design it to last 30 years. One can design it to last 10 to 15 years and then replaced with completely new redesigned one. There is no original components available after 10 years so one needs a complete redesign anyway. 

Maybe Arri people will finally understand it after the final replacement board is exhausted... it does need complete redesign to continue working in the future. AND it won't be a "final design" either which will last forever and ever. It will age too and the support will diminish quickly. One needs a complete redesign again if the camera still mechanically works after 12 to 15 years and boards start to fail. 

Look at the Arri boards for example, one can see clearly that they were never meant to last for decades. They were meant to be regularly replaced whenever needed and periodically completely redesigned with most modern components. To me it looks like they were meant to be replaced maybe after about 5 years of use on these 90s and 2000s camera models. Less than 10 years in any case. Absolutely not 15 years, they were not made that way judging from photographs

[Brandon Paterno]

generally nearly everything on the SR3 for example was (once) an off the shelf part by hitachi or analog or OKI that any functionally equivalent replacement has shrunken a substantial amount or been absorbed into the functionality provided by a given MCU or coprocessor. 

i have the component names and data sheets i could find downloaded on my work computer and there’s nothing super wacky happening that a cycle based processor can’t handle.