Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Any word about ODEMAX from NAB 2013?

I hope Odemax reaches fruition though as stated previously I will not use it. But I find it curious why many here treat it as if its a reality. It isn't. Its an idea under development. That's all we have now. Hopefully it will come to market. If it does there will be competition .And exact competition tailored for content shot using Red and distributed to those with Redray players. Someone will do it for a fee less than Odemax proposes to charge content providers.
 
Last edited:
mark haflich said:
I hope Odemax reaches fruition though as stated previously I will not use it. B.but I find it curious why many here treat it as if its a reality. It isn't. Its an idea under development. That's all we have now. Hopefully it will come to market. If it does there will be competition .And exact competition tailored for content shot using Red and distributed to those with Redray players. Someone will do it for a fee less than Odemax proposes to charge content providers.
Click to expand...

Mark, this can go two ways but I don't think you are looking at ODEMAX from a movie-makers point of view. Hasn't happened to me yet but I've read countless stories from Indie movie makers who have been screwed over by mainstream distributors.

The ODEMAX concept as explained originally here on Reduser, probably something you missed because it was taken down after a few days, is an Indie movie makers dream for distribution. I don't know why you continually are bad mouthing the product, even subtly and sometimes overtly hinting as you have in the past that it is DOA. I am buoyed by your saying you hope it comes to fruition after being told they had a booth at NAB, but I'm still getting negative vibes from your posts.

As I said this can go two ways so I'm trying to understand why you consistently post negatively about ODEMAX. I assume you have nothing to gain by ODEMAX failing... but truthfully I can't think of any other reason for your being so down on it. Especially since you already have a SONY option and have said here on RED's site that you will not be an ODEMAX customer.

I would like to say I'm sorry for always trying to counter your arguments, but I just feel the need to balance the negativity with some positive comments.
 
I guess I am always willing to figure that credible people who bring forth a reasonable and well articulated idea deserve the benefit of the doubt. Could they be scam artists? Maybe, but they weren't asking for my money so what do I have to lose to encourage their success. Is RED a scam? Hardly; they have proven themselves worthy. This a great concept, developed by credible people and it is well presented and could bring many benefits to the indie film community/ I am all for it and continue to be optimistic and supportive. Why someone would choose to be hostile and bitter is beyond me.
 
I just saw a write up over on nofilmschool dot com concerning "reelhouse".
They have a tie in with Sundance, take a 6% cut and have plans for 4k.
No set top box needed.
Do you think consumers will pay more for the set top box than they did for their 4k TV set ?
 
Les Dittert said:
I just saw a write up over on nofilmschool dot com concerning "reelhouse".
They have a tie in with Sundance, take a 6% cut and have plans for 4k.
No set top box needed.
Do you think consumers will pay more for the set top box than they did for their 4k TV set ?
Click to expand...

Yup. And just change a few limes of code and they are sending H.265 4K when the time is right. Then 8K... multiview stereo etc.

The amount ODEMAX takes is a little high. They aren't offering to do anything that another startup couldn't offer too with a little bit of work.

The amount RED wants to charge for their player is insane if they want it to be a successful mass-market product. Hence the skepticism when it comes to consumer devices for home use.

When we get to theatrical distribution: that's perhaps a good case where we need some change or options (and it won't be as easy to achieve this). But I'm not convinced yet that ODEMAX is the right group to lead the charge. A good indie solution has to address marketing head on. Marketing and social needs to be the core strategy for driving audiences to indie theatrical venues.

Just writing some code that downloads and plays a movie, processes credit cards, handles basic DRM and takes a (too large) cut is the easy part and too easy to duplicate.

Don't worry, real solutions will come. Or ODEMAX will evolve. But it has to... otherwise it is dead - hence the criticism! I seriously hope they are listening.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Marketing an indie film won't, and can't be the responsibility of the delivery platform. Otherwise we are just back to the old distribution model, only digital. Marketing has to be the responsibility of the filmmaker because he/she/they are the ones with the stake in its individual success. Platforms like Odemax will level the playing field and create opportunity. Capitalizing on that opportunity will still take marketing smarts, dedication, hard work, talent, and probably a bit of luck.
 
Bruce Allen said:
Yup. And just change a few limes of code and they are sending H.265 4K when the time is right. Then 8K... multiview stereo etc.

The amount ODEMAX takes is a little high. They aren't offering to do anything that another startup couldn't offer too with a little bit of work.

The amount RED wants to charge for their player is insane if they want it to be a successful mass-market product. Hence the skepticism when it comes to consumer devices for home use.

When we get to theatrical distribution: that's perhaps a good case where we need some change or options (and it won't be as easy to achieve this). But I'm not convinced yet that ODEMAX is the right group to lead the charge. A good indie solution has to address marketing head on. Marketing and social needs to be the core strategy for driving audiences to indie theatrical venues.

Just writing some code that downloads and plays a movie, processes credit cards, handles basic DRM and takes a (too large) cut is the easy part and too easy to duplicate.

Don't worry, real solutions will come. Or ODEMAX will evolve. But it has to... otherwise it is dead - hence the criticism! I seriously hope they are listening.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

As I recall, ODEMAX stated they had setup a pretty sophisticated method of distribution feed that at least covered the U.S. for the 9 or 10 Mbps via .RED (I know, you want that to become open source '-) probably at some expense. I agree the player's price point will slow acceptance for home use, but for business and theatrical release RED's equipment is insanely inexpensive. There has also been posited that there may be marketing avenues for content within ODEMAX, especially for theatrical release.

For some years now I envisioned a theatrical distribution service that acted like a play booking catalog does for the theater. That is, a theater chooses a playwright's play by going through a catalog service and secures the right to put on that play. ODEMAX comes closest to my original vision by offering a catalog of movies for a movie theater to choose from to exhibit for as long or short a period of time as they choose. And from what I've read here on Reduser, the ODEMAX distribution of the gate sounds pretty good to the theaters and from my point of view, acceptable as the owner of the IP who doesn't have to split his take with the levels of distribution one normally goes through. And no worries about whether or not the movie will ever recover expenses so the creator of the IP finally gets paid.

But back to the catalog of movies, the good news is that the owner of the IP is allowed to put his or her work into the catalog without being censored, that is, rejected because the autocrat in charge of who gets in decides they don't like that particular content. One can start ones own channel and let the public decide.

As to your point that you hope ODEMAX is listening, having followed this from the beginning I'm wishing that all the critics on here had been listening when this was first unveiled. There is a lot of misunderstanding going on about what has already been shown to be their method of operation, and no one who remembers that seems to be too worried about the service being dead, just waiting for it to be implemented.
 
Last edited:
I have been listening since this was first unveiled.

By "pretty sophisticated method of distribution"... having local data servers and caching / proxy systems and taking advantage of the best pipes is standard practice in IT terms. Really standard practice.

Setting up a booking catalog is a good idea too. Why don't you do it? It's not that hard to code - at all.

I mean, seriously, if you're rich enough to buy a $1,700 movie player, I'm pretty sure you have the money to hire a bunch of coders for the time needed to write a booking catalog.

I just fail to see why this needs such a high commission. It's pretty simple, IT-wise.

Now, if ODEMAX were putting serious money into marketing an indie film exhibition platform, helping finance indie venues etc, a high commission might be warranted.

But they are not, as far as I can tell.

RE: censoring, um, let's see what happens if you put a film up on ODEMAX that they don't want up there.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Anyway... here's my thoughts on how to make a service like ODEMAX work (and why what ODEMAX has revealed hasn't really even dealt with the hard problems yet):

1. Change the name. I kinda get the Odeon reference... but Odemax just sounds too close to "odious" and "odorous" - both not very good words. Also it sounds like a cheap IMAX. Not good.

2. Give away the players at cost (a few hundred bucks) or even at a loss. The point is to just get players out there to everyone.

3. Lower the commission a lot. The reason Apple / Google / etc get to charge a big commission is because they have spent tons on developing and marketing their devices and getting users to shell out cash to buy those devices... and now those users are ready to put content on them (and pay you).

4. Work on helping solve the difficult problems indies have: EG marketing and local knowhow when trying to push something nationally. Because ODEMAX has more bargaining power than a single indie film, it should be able to negotiate decent rates on things like billboards, newspaper advertising, local TV adverts, working with local teams to get posters up, promote events, etc. Help indie filmmakers connect to these services (for a reasonable commission) - it would still be cheaper and more effective.

5. Internet advertising is extremely important and maybe best left to the filmmaker - but ODEMAX can possibly still negotiate favorable deals on behalf of filmmakers and help you get correctly targeted advertising out there.

6. ODEMAX needs a serious marketing budget of its own. There need to be national commercials telling the public why they should go and see indie films instead of playing an iPad game, buying alcohol, watching sports, etc. Link those commercials with prestigious ODEMAX films. Get some Hollywood films on there too. I want to see a blockbuster with "now playing on ODEMAX" at the end of its commercial.

7. Work on a fantastic social component that makes it awesome fun for the general public to get involved in choosing and going to see ODEMAX films. Reward people. Do product tie-ins. Give people who watched the movie (or got their friends to watch) a discount on the soundtrack... or the Blu-Ray... and the script... and the toys. Help filmmakers build a community of fans who will see the film again and again.

8. Needs more. But I'm sleepy.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
They did say at NAB they were looking into releasing a cheaper version for more consumer friendly adoption prices. Don't know if those people would be able to upload though, probably just view content.

For content owners/creators where that 1750 is a bit much to deliver to one platform, my company is hoping to alleviate that pain. We're hoping to offer encoding and delivery to the Odemax platform for customers, while also offering free storage of the 4K (or smaller) films for distribution to multiple platforms. We'll have to see how that all works out, but as mentioned above, there are pros and cons to all the different distribution outlets.

For our model, we offer flat fee servicing, so filmmakers and content owners keep 100% of the revenue from the platforms. What we get a lot of the time is questions about what we offer for marketing, and people often don't understand that it costs to market, yet they are often too fearful of the price to distribute to many of these platforms, let alone add in more for marketing costs. We'd love to be able to offer some marketing options in the future, and are looking to do so, but I agree with Terry, marketing and building up that audience is nowadays in large part the responsibility of the filmmaker. If you want more direct revenue, then you have to build up the audience to give it to you. We often have to make people understand...if you are afraid to pay our price because you don't think you'll make enough sales on the platform to justify the cost, why did you make the film in the first place? If it's purely for the art, make it free. But if you can't sell a couple hundred copies to recoup costs, it may be best to rethink your business strategies.

Anyway, Odemax, Vimeo, Amazon...we like what these platforms offer for people to sell their content directly. Reelhouse, VHX...there are many others popping up allowing direct to audience distribution, but they all have issues...curation and exclusivity will be important in the future. For many of these newer platforms, you have to know what you're looking for if you're a standalone title with your own site for sales, can't really be found browsing through a catalogue. That's where the self-marketing is becoming crucial...
 
Last edited:
Answering emails would be nice. My guess is they are very capital starved and can't raise any because of an inadequate business plan that doesn't present a return on investment that is believable. Would you invest in this company?
 
Bruce you have some constructive ideas, unlike some who only offer open-ended criticism. Some of what you suggest has been offered before while some of it may be new to the discussion. Perhaps ODEMAX (sorry, too late for a name change... it's already burned into my memory '-) has addressed those already. We just have to wait and see. If they hadn't decided to "run silent, run deep" after initially breaching open water with a splash, maybe we would have more to either praise or complain about.

I'm assuming RED has some influence over ODEMAX since they are tied together by the .RED codec. And that leaves me wondering if Jim hasn't decided that being a little more reclusive with new ideas and products isn't the best approach, since everyone has a soap box nowadays and some among them have just enough knowledge to appear to the unsuspecting potential customer to know what they are talking about when dead panning a product or concept in public. The public may think the naysayer has inside knowledge when they don't.

I think this was brought home when one of the first Epics was allowed in the hands of a prominent blogger who didn't treat the honor as a beta test and publicly disparaged the camera. Of course the success of the Epic has disproved the negative press in the eyes of most but probably a lot of camera sales were lost due to a breach of an NDA by the blogger who reviewed the camera as a finished product rather than in beta testing.

All I'm sayin' is, before scolding RED and ODEMAX for what we see as shortcomings, let's wait until all is revealed and then complain about what we individually see as not addressing what WE want from the product or service.
 
mark haflich said:
Answering emails would be nice. My guess is they are very capital starved and can't raise any because of an inadequate business plan that doesn't present a return on investment that is believable. Would you invest in this company?
Click to expand...

By being in line for one of the first Red Ray Players, I already have (indirectly) invested in this company. '-)
 
Chase M. Wrenn said:
They did say at NAB they were looking into releasing a cheaper version for more consumer friendly adoption prices. Don't know if those people would be able to upload though, probably just view content.

...

Anyway, Odemax, Vimeo, Amazon...we like what these platforms offer for people to sell their content directly. ...
Click to expand...

A cheaper Red Ray Player for viewing only would make sense. Then, anyone could download using their computer or other device, the movie or content of their choice encoded in .RED and save it on a flash drive. Then just plug the flash drive into the stripped down version of the RR Player and watch the movie on a 4k display or projector.

Wouldn't even need a HDD since everything could be stored on a thumb drive.
 
Last edited:
Elsie. If Odemax never comes, there will be others so you can use your Redray for downloading. I'd invest in Red. I preordered a Redray but I won't take delivery without a content source. I will never generate 4K content. Passing for a simple down load and playback machine makes more sense for me but even then I will need a content provider and one other than Odemax. And sorry for my suggestions about answering emails and trying to build content by charging providers a lot less. I have absolutely no inside info about Red or Odemax. I do about Sony. I am not in the film production industry. I am a potential consumer of 4K content. I have a 4K projerctor but no content or way of displaying it on my projector.
 
Mark, I suppose if the .RED codec becomes accepted on other download venues, you are correct that the Red Ray Player can be used with other sourced .RED encoded content. That would be a good selling point for RED since the Player could be used as an intermediary between .RED content and a 4k TV or projector. But I really wouldn't mind seeing a player that isn't capable of downloading content since I have a computer that would serve that purpose just as well, and I don't anticipate streaming anything. For me personally, I will likely offload my own content onto a thumb drive and check my work through that method before uploading to ODEMAX (I'm gonna assume it is still going to happen until I am told by RED or ODEMAX that it has been cancelled '-)
 
Last edited:
I think that may be the first time I have had a post removed. LOL Could it be because I stole Jarred's signature line?EDIT: Never mind. I actually posted in another thread. The exact quote was "Heh heh heh." :smiley:
 
Terry VerHaar said:
I think that may be the first time I have had a post removed. LOL Could it be because I stole Jarred's signature line?EDIT: Never mind. I actually posted in another thread. The exact quote was "Heh heh heh." :smiley:
Click to expand...

I've actually had a few removed. After going back over what I posted in my head, I usually figured out why it was done. Whether I felt it was justified or not, I have no problem with them removing a post because in someone's mind, it was justified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top