Birger Lens Mount Reservations

[Clint Johnson]

In investments it's always a percentage game; per annum returns. Wether you invest your $50,000 in a return that offers 20% OR 400% (pa). THE 400% is more successful. Having to invest in a hollywood film with known stars/directors obviously gives you a more stable investment...

So i stand by what i say.

So you'd feel more financially successful spending a year making 300% profit on a $50,000 investment than you would making 30% profit on a $50,000,000 investment?

When the dollar amount invested is a variable, the percentage of return is rendered far less relevant. The massively overriding factor is the end result and in this case $15,000,000 is more financial successful than $150,000.

 

[lonny dill]

I can hardly contain myself, I dream of a day when Birger and Red work together with full warranty. Frying boards hurts the pocket book!

People say, it is easy to get rich, all you have to do is find out what everybody needs and wants. 2200 Posts must mean there is some interest in this thingy majig or there are some lonely people that sit at home like me dying to read the next thread. It is better than a suspense thriller.

 

[Jarred Land]

Sorry guys.. just got word from Erik the mount will not get to us today as hoped but possibly Thursday, so I don't think I am going to get my box of chocolates.

 

[Clint Johnson]

i dont give a rats ass how much money is spent on what.. its about talent. you got it... or you dont. talent in shooting.. talent in directing actors that suck ass into acting works of art. jee.. don't you guys go to film festivals anymore? how much did 4 months 3 weeks and 2 days cost?

And with more money you can afford to find that talent... not hope and pray that you luck out and there just happens to be people available who will work cheap and who have this talent.

I doubt as many as one indie film in a thousand is able to fill even half of the cast with actors who are talented and right for the role- or half the crew with people who are really good at their job.

"4 months 3 weeks and 2 days" cost about a million dollars to make and grossed about $1.2 million dollars. With half of the box office going to the theatres, that means the return was maybe $600,000. So even before we take into account any promotional work and festival expenses... the film is loosing $400,000.

With DVDs and television, that might close up some but each of those come with expenses as well and the subject matter of the film means that it will be a tough sell into most mainstream markets- ie the ones that pay well.

They may break even over the next ten years, but I would be very surprised.

That said, I'm sure that the film makers feel that it was an artistic success and if there are enough others who feel the same way, they should be able to raise money for another film. It won't be from anyone who wants to make money though.



And yeah... that whole Birger mount thing... still looking forward to it!

 

[Roberto B]

Sorry guys.. just got word from Erik the mount will not get to us today as hoped but possibly Thursday, so I don't think I am going to get..

your box of chocolates before than thursday.. no more no less right?

 

[Mark Crabtree]

OK Jarred,

Fair is fair, I will extend the deadline by the amount of time you had to wait on Erik.

 

[Teague Kennedy]

So you'd feel more financially successful spending a year making 300% profit on a $50,000 investment than you would making 30% profit on a $50,000,000 investment?

When the dollar amount invested is a variable, the percentage of return is rendered far less relevant. The massively overriding factor is the end result and in this case $15,000,000 is more financial successful than $150,000.

not true. you are risking more money to make a lower percentage, and more of your capital is tied up. use your 50,000,000 to invest in 100 50,000 dollar movies with a 300 percent profit. that's a better idea. it's always about percentage.

Now back to Birger.

 

[Harmonica]

OK Jarred,

Fair is fair, I will extend the deadline by the amount of time you had to wait on Erik.

Show some resolve, Mark! Stand your ground!

Or at least downgrade the post-Friday offer to cocoa puffs.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Fair is fair.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Can someone else post something? The Birger thread is not supposed to go over an hour without a new post.

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Hey... how about THIS? It's THIS lens, along with an early triangulation process auto focus system.

We can send it to Erik to see if he can reverse engineer it and get our EF mounts to become auto-focus, for those "special" occasions.

Maybe?

 

[Karl H]

I like chocolates if there's a spare box going.

 

[Mark Crabtree]

Sorry, no spares.

 

[Michael Hastings]

Can someone else post something? The Birger thread is not supposed to go over an hour without a new post.

Well, I could try to hijack the thread again.:biggrin:

Smart EF mount will be a great boon to underwater motion picture making. Iris and focus on many different lenses with no need to change or adjust gears.

 

[Andrew M.]

I have couple of these,

http://www.oceanreefgroup.com/neptunespace.html

so we can communicate under the water, did you try to use it? I don't like the way it sounds, I have trouble to recognize the sentences spoken to me, and I did try couple (3) languages too. Still have trouble, something wrong with audio bandwidth setup, should have programmable equalizer build in. I have to modify it.

Did you see new Sony water resistant setup
They will put you out of business with underwater enclosures.

..moment before the dive..

 

[Clint Johnson]

not true. you are risking more money to make a lower percentage, and more of your capital is tied up. use your 50,000,000 to invest in 100 50,000 dollar movies with a 300 percent profit. that's a better idea. it's always about percentage.

Now back to Birger.

If you can find 100 films in the last quarter century that cost $50,000 to make and have made 300% profit I will be amazed. If you can find a single filmmaker who has made more than one $50,000 films and that has averaged a 300% return I will be even more amazed.

1) It is not possible to make 100 $50,000 films with anywhere near the same time and effort that it takes to make one $50,000,000 film.

2) The chance of making 100 $50,000 films and averaging 300% profit is so close to zero as to be mathematically indistinguishable.

Sometimes percentage takes a back seat to reality and probability.



So we're looking forward to some Birger news on Thursday are we? I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it is a user swappable mount that passes muster with Red warranty.

 

[Teague Kennedy]

If you can find 100 films in the last quarter century that cost $50,000 to make and have made 300% profit I will be amazed. If you can find a single filmmaker who has made more than one $50,000 films and that has averaged a 300% return I will be even more amazed.

1) It is not possible to make 100 $50,000 films with anywhere near the same time and effort that it takes to make one $50,000,000 film.

2) The chance of making 100 $50,000 films and averaging 300% profit is so close to zero as to be mathematically indistinguishable.

Sometimes percentage takes a back seat to reality and probability.

of course you are right... if you make a small independent film it is unlikely to make any money at all, but I was using the example as an illustration. not only does the money you make matter, but the money you risk. percentage is king. always has been. always will be.

ex... your billionaire neighbor invests 10 billion dollars for a year and in the end of the year he makes 1000 dollars (ends up with $10,000,001,000.00) You invest 2000, and end up with 3000. You have made the same amount of money, but he made a VERY VERY bad investment. You made a VERY VERY good investment.

now back to birger....

 

[Thor Wixom]

If you can find 100 films in the last quarter century that cost $50,000 to make and have made 300% profit I will be amazed. If you can find a single filmmaker who has made more than one $50,000 films and that has averaged a 300% return I will be even more amazed.

1) It is not possible to make 100 $50,000 films with anywhere near the same time and effort that it takes to make one $50,000,000 film.

2) The chance of making 100 $50,000 films and averaging 300% profit is so close to zero as to be mathematically indistinguishable.

Sometimes percentage takes a back seat to reality and probability.



So we're looking forward to some Birger news on Thursday are we? I pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it is a user swappable mount that passes muster with Red warranty.

Clint,

I come from an action sports filmmaking background.

Many of the films in that genre cost $50,000 to produce, and most of them make a 300% profit, and most of them are also straight to DVD releases.

In fact, the entire model of action sports film making runs along those numbers. Some of the bigger films cost around $500,000 and gross between $1.5 and $2 million, ie, Warren Miller.

It's a model that works. And... there are well over 100 of those films produced every year, across all the subgenres (skateboarding, mountain biking, surfing, etc.).

Just an FYI.

I think it could work in independent film as well. However the reason it works so well in action sports is because there are many enthusiasts for each genre that are dedicated to the theme of each of the films. That may not be the case with naratives.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Birger thread...

-Thor

 

[Joel Kaye]

I think it could work in independent film as well. However the reason it works so well in action sports is because there are many enthusiasts for each genre that are dedicated to the theme of each of the films. That may not be the case with naratives.

Right Thor. Niche films have worked. Competition is tough and getting tougher. I do know of a few narratives that were sold directly to the consumer by the producer and made a few hundred K profit back to the producer. They were smart business people though. Most filmmakers are not.

 

[Jason Sinclair]

If you can find 100 films in the last quarter century that cost $50,000 to make and have made 300% profit I will be amazed. If you can find a single filmmaker who has made more than one $50,000 films and that has averaged a 300% return I will be even more amazed.

1) It is not possible to make 100 $50,000 films with anywhere near the same time and effort that it takes to make one $50,000,000 film.

2) The chance of making 100 $50,000 films and averaging 300% profit is so close to zero as to be mathematically indistinguishable.

Sometimes percentage takes a back seat to reality and probability.

Yea will give you that hollywood system has their own way and it works well . The point i was making is there is a lot of money to be made in low budget film making and there are a lot of wealthy low budget film makers.

I just find it a bit silly when some people say who ahhh about Hollywood budgets when on percentages there are just as successful films.

Hollywood studios are machines with stock holders. Most people get wages. Some, the very lucky (perhaps not) few at the top can command their own deals and maybe percentages. But that is a rare few. Decent wages and working conditions granted for most of the workers.

At the end of the day, Hollywood films are made by investors. It is unlikely that many would put in over $500,000. It's a pretty well guaranteed return but there are quite a few flops as well.


So rather than saying us against them, i'm just pointing to the fact that there is a lot of money for the astute low budget film maker. It's not all Hollywood. In recent years the trend is more towards low budget films (mirimax made its fortune doing this) where they can be tested with audiences and be guaranteed more.

You are right the low budget arena is a lot less stable. However the point remains. If an investor invest $500,000 in your film and Miramax picks it up at Sundance for $2 mill then his investment was wiser than if he was to invest in a studio film.