Resolve and Tangent Elements

[Rob Ruffo]

BM have lost my trust. Glad I only gave them $1000. We were seriously considering a full BM panel until the "Free Hippie Version" came out, and now it would be very tricky to sell DaVinci sessions to paying customers, as it is already beginning to be perceived as 7D Wedding Software. Looking into Baselight more seriously now, especially since I respect Jake's work so much and he seems to be a fan.

[Paul Provost]

Base light pricing will lower as well.
Do you think teranex is a "hippie" standards/frame converter now that bmd has cut the price to a fraction of what it was?

[M Most]

BM have lost my trust. Glad I only gave them $1000. We were seriously considering a full BM panel until the "Free Hippie Version" came out, and now it would be very tricky to sell DaVinci sessions to paying customers, as it is already beginning to be perceived as 7D Wedding Software.

Company 3 doesn't seem to have any problem selling Resolve sessions at rates mere mortals can only dream of, and for the most elaborate commercials and largest DI projects one can imagine. Neither does Technicolor, Level 3, Encore, or a number of other large facilities. 7D wedding jobs are not usually done in room with proper monitoring, proper scopes, proper calibration of those monitors, comfortable surroundings, facility level support, and perhaps most of all, an experienced, talented colorist. BM's pricing policies have certainly devalued the notion of what color grading should cost, no argument there. But it has also been degraded for every other system. Most facilities I know don't sell Baselight, Lustre, or Resolve. They sell the colorists and their rooms that happen to have those devices in them. Some facilities even have multiple systems - Level 3, for instance, has Resolve (multiple Resolves), Lustre, DaVinci 2k, and Baselight. The different colorists have their own preferences, but all of the rooms are set up with proper monitoring and a proper environment. The pricing is determined more by who's sitting in the chair than what system is in the room.

That's what I think, anyway.

[Bruce Allen]

+100% as usual, Mike :)

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

[John Tissavary]

Agree with Mike et al

Anyone looking for gear branding to sell their color services is going to have a rough time. Differentiation, more than anything else, is the body of work completed by the colorist, and the client base this colorist can attract & maintain.

It's been like that for a long time anyway, but in the past you had the added necessity of expensive rooms to compete. There are still clients that are (mis)led by marketing & branding, but I'm seeing considerably less of that than before, even in the spots world where it always seemed the most prevalent.

And I have not experienced DaVinci Resolve branding as a liability at all. Hell, when my last company bought Resolve, it cost over $350k per seat. I was ecstatic when they lowered the price, improved the product (the $350k version is clunky as hell compared to what's out now), maintained great support, and broadened the hardware possibilities. It's a win-win as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, and I'd LOVE to see top quality support for Element, even if it costs extra. And I'd REALLY love to see Resolve panels drop to a very competitive price, and be map-able to other software.

JT

[Rob Ruffo]

Company 3 doesn't seem to have any problem selling Resolve sessions at rates mere mortals can only dream of, and for the most elaborate commercials and largest DI projects one can imagine. Neither does Technicolor, Level 3, Encore, or a number of other large facilities. 7D wedding jobs are not usually done in room with proper monitoring, proper scopes, proper calibration of those monitors, comfortable surroundings, facility level support, and perhaps most of all, an experienced, talented colorist. BM's pricing policies have certainly devalued the notion of what color grading should cost, no argument there. But it has also been degraded for every other system. Most facilities I know don't sell Baselight, Lustre, or Resolve. They sell the colorists and their rooms that happen to have those devices in them. Some facilities even have multiple systems - Level 3, for instance, has Resolve (multiple Resolves), Lustre, DaVinci 2k, and Baselight. The different colorists have their own preferences, but all of the rooms are set up with proper monitoring and a proper environment. The pricing is determined more by who's sitting in the chair than what system is in the room.

That's what I think, anyway.

I recognize 2 realities; What i think should be the case, and what is the case. On the should side, I agree with you 150%. But some agency creatives get all kinds of funny ideas, and that is the reality of my world. About 2 years ago they all wanted to shoot on 5D because it was "in" (thankfully, many crappy looking prods full of horrible mishaps put an end to that, as did the association of that look with down-on-their luck types shooting no-budget corporates). People who hire us trust us to make good recommendations, but we are not God-like, we are not Company 3. Agency creatives can tell their friends and clients they graded at Company 3, and it wouldn't matter if their project was done on a Commodore 64. For small boutiques like us, there is often work to be done putting clients - particularly new clients and even more so clienst who haven't even yet made a firm decision to work with us, whom I may not ever meet or know about if the decision is no - at ease. Last week someone was here and said "You're grading on Davinci? Isn't that free prosumer software that kids use?" I mentioned Company 3, the fact that our monitors and my experience in post make a difference, but the thought and its bad smell remained in the room, a room with I might mention wonderfully perfectly calibrated monitors, perfect lighting hitting perfect grey-painted monitor surrounds, extremely comfortable couches, superb coffee and a high-status, picturesque location in the historic district. And yet....

You have to understand that not all work is like features and TV where the people with the power are full time production pros. Ads and music video have clients for whom moving picture production is only a peripheral concern. In my world you have to be very careful about perception, because no one has time to actually find out what reality is. And... Arguing with a client is often much like arguing with a woman about how she should want to date you. :-)

All this to say I was commenting on how perception has been negatively affected in my end of the production world, not what I feel our clients "should" think.

[M Most]

You have to understand that not all work is like features and TV where the people with the power are full time production pros. Ads and music video have clients for whom moving picture production is only a peripheral concern. In my world you have to be very careful about perception, because no one has time to actually find out what reality is. And... Arguing with a client is often much like arguing with a woman about how she should want to date you. :-)

All this to say I was commenting on how perception has been negatively affected in my end of the production world, not what I feel our clients "should" think.

I hate to say it, but what you're describing sounds like a market in which money cannot be made. A market in which you cannot make money is not really a market. If all your clients want you to do is spend large amounts of money but not compensate you for it, well, that doesn't sound like a particularly successful business plan. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating your business or the market you serve, I'm just commenting on reality vs. common perception. If the only way you can be successful in your market is by acquiring a Lustre or a Baselight, you have to weigh the cost of doing that against what those clients are willing to pay for. The cost of anything in business is only relevant when it's weighed against the revenue it can generate. If a piece of equipment costs $100K but can generate revenues of $500K, that's an excellent investment. If something costs $1000 or less but doesn't generate revenue, that's a bad investment. I understand your dilemma, but I think you need to look at this in pure business terms, not in terms of the pain its causing you to explain things to a client base that doesn't want to listen. No amount of badgering Blackmagic is going to change their pricing policy, and no amount of complaining is going to put the genie back in the bottle. If Resolve is not the program for your business, you need to use something that is and figure out if the cost of that is justified. Because those same agencies that might cause you to spend money for something else are perfectly willing to turn around the day you do and set up their own in-house finishing room. Probably using Resolve.

[Gabriele Turchi]

Company 3 doesn't seem to have any problem selling Resolve sessions at rates mere mortals can only dream of, and for the most elaborate commercials and largest DI projects one can imagine.

i always wondered : what is the ballpark price for a Hollywood Blockbuster DI color work ?? off course it can be anything , but if for a top of the line commercial 30to60 sec can even be 1500 USD/H for let say 8-10 hours...

how much a DI cost for a Studio Movie "? or for a blockbuster ? (like transforms , avatar , the hobbit , spiderman etc...)

thanks

[ERIC PECK]

Interesting the direction that this thread is taking.

Although I do agree in many ways with "M Most", I do have to admit, having the "expensive system" always gives some "glamour". I know many people that make a living out of the glamour that expensive equipment provides, heck, the entertainment industry is in many ways smoke and mirrors, and post is no exception.

I am quite happy with Resolve, yet sometimes I get comments from associates suggesting we should "upgrade" to Scratch, or Smoke, and even though both tools do their respective jobs very well in their fields, I know I'm not getting those comments because of the relative merits of the applications, but because of the marketability to clients.

In the end the logic of some clients is somewhat simple.... if you are successful, it must be, among other things, because you have the best tools... and the best tools are always the "most expensive" tools.... and so... if you are using the cheapo tools, you are probably a loser.

The same goes for RED, there are hounds of people in the industry that would never touch a RED, but would shoot on Alexa, or Genesis, "because Panavision is Panavision", and RED is that "cheap camera".

Unfortunately its something that is ingrained in the culture and spreads to everything that we do.... the expensive house, the expensive car... the expensive shoes.... and so on.

In my humble experience, I usually steer away from clients that come with that attitude of "Why do you use that cheap software... or that cheap camera...?"... Those clients don't have any respect for you or for your work, and will always criticize... if not because of the software, because of something else. Those are the same clients that want packaged prices, don't want to pay, want deals, want credit, and then in the end of the day, go out and bash you and say that you work is sh*t, because you didn't give them free hours or what have you.

In the end, thats why is hard to develop a portfolio of clients, my opinion, stay true to yourself, if Resolve is the tool for you, then good, if is not the tool, then get the tool that suits your needs, not because of price but because of needs..... and run away from the hounds of jerks that just want "the best", those are the worst clients.

Just my two cents.

Now, when can we get support for the Element on Resolve :D

[jake blackstone]

i always wondered : what is the ballpark price for a Hollywood Blockbuster DI color work ?? off course it can be anything , but if for a top of the line commercial 30to60 sec can even be 1500 USD/H for let say 8-10 hours...

how much a DI cost for a Studio Movie "? or for a blockbuster ? (like transforms , avatar , the hobbit , spiderman etc...)

thanks

This is coming from a friend of mine, who is a producer at one of the top DI houses in LA.
$250,000 is about the average cost for a standard studio feature, but I believe, that price includes prints too.