Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

who can do a price comparison?

vstm10 said:
the 24,000$ quote I found is here:

http://silverado.cc/shop/product.php?productid=859&cat=0&page=1
Click to expand...

Folks,

Our model is not built to compete with folks looking to bottom-feed in this market.

Our price will not go down, but rather the value will go up. As we continue to accumulate gear, we'll include it into the package and keep the price the same.

When we add a 50-150mm lens? Price will stay the same.

When we add a MacBook Pro capture system? Price will stay the same.

When we add an LTO-3A tape drive? Price will stay the same.

Now...your shipping bill may go up with all this stuff, but the rental price will not change.

So...hurry up with some rentals so we can pay off the camera and start to add some cool toys...

;-)

Torrey
-----------------------------------------------
Torrey Loomis
President & CEO - Silverado Systems, Inc.
Outfitter to the World's Foremost Apple Professionals
2600 East Bidwell Street, Suite 280
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 760-0032 • FAX (916) 404-5258
tloomis@silverado.cc
http://www.Silverado.cc

Check out our Insider blog at http://silveradosys.blogspot.com
 
torster said:
Folks,

Our model is not built to compete with folks looking to bottom-feed in this market.
Click to expand...

Insult your peers and their customers...

But wait there's more...

torster said:
So...hurry up with some rentals so we can pay off the camera and start to add some cool toys...
Click to expand...

Insult your potential customers...


I commend you on your strategy. You must be a shepherd among sheep ;)
 
chuckt said:
35 mm film Arri 535 is cheap to rent and shoot.
Cost of film is cheaper than the storage and archiving cost of digital medium.

Rehearse the scenes many times before shooting.
Limit the retakes by careful planning.

You do not need to telecine, FCP, copy back to film etc., except for scenes involving special effects.
Old fashioned cutting and splicing is enough for film and it costs next to nothing.

I know of many many commercially successful movies (2 to 2.5 hrs long) made for total budget of under $250,000.
Movie shot on film has a film look, which cannot be duplicated by digital.
That is why film makers all over the world choose film, for small budget to large budget movies.
Click to expand...

chuckt... can you think of any reasons to shoot RED instead of film?

Jim
 
chuckt said:
35 mm film Arri 535 is cheap to rent and shoot.
Cost of film is cheaper than the storage and archiving cost of digital medium.

Rehearse the scenes many times before shooting.
Limit the retakes by careful planning.

You do not need to telecine, FCP, copy back to film etc., except for scenes involving special effects.
Old fashioned cutting and splicing is enough for film and it costs next to nothing.

I know of many many commercially successful movies (2 to 2.5 hrs long) made for total budget of under $250,000.
Movie shot on film has a film look, which cannot be duplicated by digital.
That is why film makers all over the world choose film, for small budget to large budget movies.
Click to expand...

Hey Chuck! How is your film coming along?
 
sparkhope said:
Insult your peers and their customers...But wait there's more...Insult your potential customers...)
Click to expand...

Spark,

I am not sure what what you meant by saying that I was insulting my "peers" by talking about other folks looking to rent at rock bottom prices. My peers rent at similar or much higher rates.

I recently saw a quote from a major rental house in LA for a large commercial shoot. Total for that camera system rental was over $40,000 for six days!

I can't say anything about the particulars except this--I am 100% confident that RED ONE could have stood up on that production and--at the end of the day--the client could not have told the difference between Camera A and the RED ONE. I have seen the proof myself.

We aren't here to undermine any of these folks rental businesses. Keeping our rates where they are and providing more value and personal attention to the client is beneficial for us and our fellow rental houses. We work with a lot of these folks and I respect them all. My goal is not to devalue their hard work, but to compete on a level playing field by adding more value.

At the end of the day, competition by price slashing doesn't help anyone, but creates a cutthroat market.

OT: I read a book called "Four Hour Workweek" and it really changed my perspective on the client we should be working with. It freed up my thinking on how we should focus our business on the fewer clients who appreciate value, rather than the client who views your product as a commodity.

While the RED ONE camera might be seen as a "commodity" by some people, you certainly don't have to be--nor should you try to be. You can take your RED and shoot, make movies, experiment, and offer your clients significantly more than a "commodity" product.

Speaking of value, we have distributed over 10 terabytes of R3D files FREE to over 300 people on REDUser over the last four months at a personal cost of over $6000 in time, expenses, and postage. The only fee we've ever asked was from International recipients, and this was to cover Int'l shipping only.

You can ask any of the folks who received this material and I am sure you'd not find one person who was "insulted as a potential customer..."

Finner--I would hope they would think we are a "classy outfit."

Torrey
-----------------------------------------------
Torrey Loomis
President & CEO - Silverado Systems, Inc.
Outfitter to the World's Foremost Apple Professionals
2600 East Bidwell Street, Suite 280
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 760-0032 • FAX (916) 404-5258
tloomis@silverado.cc
http://www.Silverado.cc
 
chuckt said:
35 mm film Arri 535 is cheap to rent and shoot.
Cost of film is cheaper than the storage and archiving cost of digital medium.

Rehearse the scenes many times before shooting.
Limit the retakes by careful planning.

You do not need to telecine, FCP, copy back to film etc., except for scenes involving special effects.
Old fashioned cutting and splicing is enough for film and it costs next to nothing.

I know of many many commercially successful movies (2 to 2.5 hrs long) made for total budget of under $250,000.
Movie shot on film has a film look, which cannot be duplicated by digital.
That is why film makers all over the world choose film, for small budget to large budget movies.
Click to expand...

Hi Chuckt,

shooting film is not actually cheaper than the storage and archival cost, where do you have that info from?

If you want to store the final movie, say as a 2K processed DI stream, it'll be less than 2 TBytes of storage. You can get external 2 TByte drives now for less than 500 Euros over here - thats less than the amount of 1 roll of 10 minutes negative film (undeveloped). So 20 minutes of undeveloped film already pay you a double copy (for safety) of your 2K DI master of the film.

The original RED footage (all takes, even the unused ones) will be small as well. Imagine, at ~36 MByte/s at 4K REDCODE 24fps and a 20:1 shooting ratio (shooting the rehearsals to catch the good ones, recommended on an indy feature IMHO...) you'll end up with:

20/1 * 90 minutes * 60 seconds/minute * 36 MByte/second = 20/1 * 194,400 MByte = 3,888,0000 MByte

So you can have the full original footage (20:1 shooting ratio) saved two times for safety on seperate external disks easily for less than 2000 Euros in total (4 external 2 TByte disk systems, 2*4 TByte of data).

So summarized you could end up with an investment of about 3000 Euros to keep the complete 30 hours (20:1) source footage plus the resulting 2K uncompressed DI Master two times for safety. Add another 1500 Euros for every further copy of EVERYTHING.

3000 Euros equal about 60 to 70 minutes of undevelopod negative film (Fuji). And I have already very good rates on film... Not even enough for a 1:1 shooting!

The big point poeple had to understand is the fact they need to process the data if they need to do effects etc. That is the same was with film. Count that time as if it were spend on scanning, that comes close to it and its value.

For those who may not need any effects, it may be well possible to edit (e.g. in FCP) and directly make a DI master using a e.g. Scratch system for conforming. No transcoding required in that stage until the render out of the graded DI master result.

Shooting on film can not be a recommendation here IMHO, seriously.

Cheers,
Axel
 
chuckt said:
35 mm film Arri 535 is cheap to rent and shoot.
Cost of film is cheaper than the storage and archiving cost of digital medium.

Rehearse the scenes many times before shooting.
Limit the retakes by careful planning.

You do not need to telecine, FCP, copy back to film etc., except for scenes involving special effects.
Old fashioned cutting and splicing is enough for film and it costs next to nothing.

I know of many many commercially successful movies (2 to 2.5 hrs long) made for total budget of under $250,000.
Movie shot on film has a film look, which cannot be duplicated by digital.
That is why film makers all over the world choose film, for small budget to large budget movies.
Click to expand...


TROLL ALERT! :)
 
lets lighten up -
Torrey (Silverado Systems) post has some humor in it ...
they have decided on a price that they know they can give their customers top notch service & stay in business .. they know the client they want to serve ..

at some point each of us will have to decide on what out rental price will be ... Torrey let us all see their prices and rental agreements when they 1st got their Reds last year ...
Red rental prices will have a range from low to high ..
 
Axel Mertes said:
Hi Chuckt,

shooting film is not actually cheaper than the storage and archival cost, where do you have that info from?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory digital archiving solution at this time that I am aware of. Digital solutions are highly susceptible to the deterioration of the medium or obsolescence of the format. The best archiving solution is to run the three color channels off to their own black and white film negative and store them which, I expect, is going to be pricey regardless of whether the film was shot digitally or on film. However, the film negative can be expected to last longer than the digitally acquired data.

Hopefully someone is working on this. Seems the solution would require a standards body or a major company with some expectation of longevity (good luck) committing to supporting an archiving format for many decades into the future. Otherwise the industry would need to adopt a regimen of continual migration of archival data to multiple instances of new formats as they're developed, which is going to be pricey.

I haven't seen any good solutions in this area so there's probably no point going head to head with film on this one.
 
chuckt said:
You do not need to telecine, FCP, copy back to film etc., except for scenes involving special effects.
Click to expand...

How does one color correct without a DI?
 
mdo said:
How does one color correct without a DI?
Click to expand...

Using printer lights, exactly as it's been done for the last 90 years or so. If you're even asking this question, you need to educate yourself a bit on film and how it works.
 
Jeff Brue said:
The video or film look with a camera like the red, viper, f23, genesis,D20 or any other really depends on your colorist, and if they know how to either make anything look like film ,or how to color through a film LUT to get a density that feels filmic.
Click to expand...

No.

Video look has to do with motion. No colorist can mimic that. Film motion makes film, digital motion makes video.
 
1st. RED does not necessarily have a video look or a film look. Do yourself a favor and do the blind taste test. there are pros and cons to each look. personally I love both.
2nd. a 4:1 shooting ratio usually means really shooting 2 takes because of heads and tales of each take, pick up shots etc...
3rd. Shooting a feature with short-enz means having some good camera assistants to keep those magazines loaded.
4th. digital archiving is easy and super inexpensive these days. the rule of thumb is to have your duplicate media on 3 separate units. meaning raid set-ups, or tape back-ups etc... Everybody is doing it. If you are talking long term storage you should refresh your back-ups ever so often.
5th. the huge savings on Film vs Red are the telecine costs. a low budget indie might do all their dailies to HDCAM, d5 etc.. and never look at the film again, and just finish from those tapes. A larger budget film will always go back to original negative and either scan it to 2k/4k or color time in the film lab the good old fashion way.
6th. even if you shoot super 16 its very hard to shoot a feature for under $100,000 in just camera, filmstock, and telecine costs without some huge favors.
7th. On big budget movies the savings are negligible, especially when the STUDIOS are considering $40 million there low budget features.
 
Shooting RED is of course much cheaper than film, perhaps not for spots, but for documentaries or feature film, we bought some digital storage (around 24 terabytes) for quiet nothing, something like 7500$. 20 years ago, 4 gigs were around 12'000 $, and storage will be cheaper and cheaper from month to month. I'm shure, the discussion about shooting film versus RED will be obsolete in some month as it was the case to change from analog to digital in photography. A lot of people still trust in film (I love film), but very soon, this will be history. Film will come back as a renaissance medium, as it happens with CD versus records, we will lean back and enjoy the old film movies as we enjoy the old records for sure. But the reality is different: Money will direct, what we use or not. From that point, technologies like RED Digital Cinema will win, sooner or later. I think, very soon.
 
another interesting side note. 1000' of kodak 35mm stock is roughly $700.00 and equals around 11 minutes of time. this is unprocessed and without telecine. film has silver in it, so when silver goes up film stock goes up. it wasn't so long ago that it was $500 for that same roll.
 
Nice one Studiodrome!

I love shooting on something that has silver in it.

Like drinking Sake with gold flakes in it, or the American version: goldschlager.

If red considered adding a bit of gold to there sensor then we would be in business.

sorry for the silly comment... I am trying to get up to 100 posts :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top