Have you paid back your $30K+ investment?

[Charles Nader]

If you can't get your return of investment from a Red rental then there is no point of having one. The post is so expensive that I don't see what's the idea for an individual possessing a red one camera, just for having one.
Especially when you have new models knocking at the door.
I think in the medium to long run this strange strategy of Red, flooding the market with 4000-5000 cameras and rushing to next models, without assuring that you have even one model that deliver the product will knock them back.

Hi gdv,

Explain...how post is so expensive? I know their are costs but most people are editing on Macs using FCP. Sure, for professional post house to do CC and DI will be expensive if you go that route, but if not...I think its pretty cheap comparing to film costs producing the project on film stock, processing, lab work, dailies, distrubution, etc.

I'm confused?

I know some RED owners who basically bought the camera to shoot their own stuff, like a feature film or such. They didn't buy it to make profit with it, they wanted like most of us, to finally shoot with superiour image quality and actually own the camera. Before, unless you were very rich, you couldn't buy a camera...now with RED...we can. In the old days, most had to rent. Dropping tens of thousands or even hundreds to shoot a movie.

Charles

 

[Charles Nader]

Hi,

5 weeks, I think we could be getting to the point that supply exceeds demand as far as rentals.

Stephen

Fanastic...I had no luck on a deal like yourself. Why would anyone do that...unless its a personal friend or collugue that is willing to do such a nice favor for you.

Sweet.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

The democratization of tools for production and post driven by technology continues to push the rental business away from the "old school rental house model". It's about SERVICE and EXPERTISE and ADDED VALUE services you can bundle.

You can think the rental business is all about price driven by supply and demand, but I assure you, smart producers and companies understand the value of expertise and service, and they will pay "over market" for that and save money in the long run. And they will have less stress and less grief.

 

[Stephen Williams]

and they will pay "over market" for that and save money in the long run. And they will have less stress and less grief.

Hi,

I find the same to be true being a DOP.

Stephen

 

[Florian Stadler]

I heard there are 20 people in Switzerland running after Stephen trying to PAY HIM to touch their cameras and anoint their cameras to godlike status...

Nei aber so oeppis gits doch gar noed....

Last time I checked an HVX200 still rents for 200-250/day and a DVX100 for 100-150...

Sorry I couldn't resist.

 

[Charles Nader]

The democratization of tools for production and post driven by technology continues to push the rental business away from the "old school rental house model". It's about SERVICE and EXPERTISE and ADDED VALUE services you can bundle.

You can think the rental business is all about price driven by supply and demand, but I assure you, smart producers and companies understand the value of expertise and service, and they will pay "over market" for that and save money in the long run. And they will have less stress and less grief.

I agree. Sure, film life is easier with talented and experienced crew and D.P.

Yes, less stress is good.

 

[D Namir]

Charles,
have you tried shooting 4K and editing it at home on your Mac? Have you tried doing it for a feature film? or most of Red owners plan of making a short 5 minutes movie?
And like you said what about CC? DI? and the rest for bringing it to final?
If you are a production company and have a feature to shoot for a budget of $200K which will return even only $300K and you plan on doing 5 features for the next 5 years then this is something else.
But I think a lot bought this camera for renting it and I doubt if they see their money back with Red's marketing strategy.

 

[Stephen Williams]

I heard there are 20 people in Switzerland running after Stephen trying to PAY HIM to touch their cameras and anoint their cameras to godlike status...

Nei aber so oeppis gits doch gar noed....

Last time I checked an HVX200 still rents for 200-250/day and a DVX100 for 100-150...

Sorry I couldn't resist.

Hi Florian,

I don't speak German so thats lost on me.

Cheers,

Stephen

 

[Steve Sanacore]

Charles,
have you tried shooting 4K and editing it at home on your Mac? Have you tried doing it for a feature film? or most of Red owners plan of making a short 5 minutes movie?
And like you said what about CC? DI? and the rest for bringing it to final?
If you are a production company and have a feature to shoot for a budget of $200K which will return even only $300K and you plan on doing 5 features for the next 5 years then this is something else.
But I think a lot bought this camera for renting it and I doubt if they see their money back with Red's marketing strategy.

I really doubt that most RED owners planned or are planning on making most of their money renting the camera, (unless you are are rental house already).

I will have mine available for rent, hopefully along with me as the DP or Director. In other words, as an asset that comes with me, not on it's own.

But right now I think most producers and cameramen are still waiting for RED to prove itself. But when RED becomes 100% as reliable as an Arri, and post production is readily available, demand may jump up fairly quickly and overtake supply for a little while depending on how fast RED can deliver.

 

[Marc Berger]

I second that.
It´s a part of my business to rent it out, but just beside. The real renting out business needs much more then a Red One (or Epic) and a couple of lenses. The big renting houses who can offer everything (Cams, all possible lenses, complete lighting, technicians with skill...) don´t have enough Red´s to feed the demand currently. And the complete service is the reason why they can rent out the cam expensive and make profit in very short time.
Marc

 

[Tom Lowe]

Pros in LA who already have a lot of contacts and are established will make their money back lickety-split. Noobs and people in remote cities will take longer to earn back 30K.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Trying to discuss rental rates is somewhat pointless. We've all tried it here before and it didn't work out so well. Prices vary from one market to another. Around my area, $250/day will barely get you an HVX and one or two P2 cards, no support, etc.. I can find RED rentals cheaper in LA or places where the cameras are more plentiful, but by the time I pay for insured shipping here and back, I don't save any money unless I'm doing a long-term rental.

If someone wants to essentially whore-out their camera kit for below market rates, that's their business. I don't see it working out too well for them in the long term. It will take more rentals and more wear and tear on their equipment to pay it off. The real benefit to a good rental house is what others have said. Good service and expertise to go along with the gear. I've looked at renting out my gear and I can't make the numbers work in my area. I can make more money by picking up the camera a couple days a week and shooting stock or putting my effort into finding work that goes beyond just supplying a camera and being someone's tech / DIT / AC / set-monkey. There's not a huge amount of that sort of work in this state anyway.

As far as paying off my RED investment... Every time I shoot a video of my kids in 4K, like my son's 3rd birthday, or my daughter's ballet recital, I feel as if the camera has paid for itself. But that's just me. If we want to talk about actual billings and collecting funds from clients to recover the monetary investment, that differs too. I think I've recovered a bit more than half the cost of the RED One body with what I've billed for using it. Realistically, it will probably take me a good year from receiving all my RED kit to come close to paying it off and lately I haven't been using it that much. At least not on paying gigs, my current projects involve other equipment. I don't make it a habit to buy equipment that won't pay for itself within 12 to 18 months, but with the RED I bought it anyway. Although, I don't think I'll have a problem with it returning the investment, even with very light professional use in the 2.5 months I've owned it.

 

[D Namir]

Pros in LA who already have a lot of contacts and are established will make their money back lickety-split. Noobs and people in remote cities will take longer to earn back 30K.

I surely hope you are right, but I doubt.
There are a few points that stand against all this.
1. The Red one camera was created to be a motion picture camera, to create images for the big screen. That's how it was presented >>> 4K!!!
2. However, from what I read people are having it to shoot their kids and family?... they have in hand a powerful tool but not more than ... to have the feeling that they are part of the desirable glamorous Hollywood-Motion-Picture-industry...?
3. The motion picture industry was in the last 30-40 years a rental market.
4. Flooding the market with more than 4000 Red one cameras that are still in the process of building (15, 16, 17...) doesn't work for this kind of industry.
5. Working on two other models (Scarlet and Epic) while the first camera is still struggling to survive doesn't help.
I had this argument with other owners before, I quoted big rentals house, users attacked me for that because they don't like to hear that.
There is a big chance that in a few years 4000 people will have a camera in their hand and will be able to do nothing with it.
If you look at the history of the film you will find tens of formats from 9.5mm 17mm 20 something mm, 3 x projections, 360 degrees projections with syncronized 11 projections, drive-in movies etc that are nothing today. When it is film it is still 35mm mostly.
I hope I am wrong but I maybe right big time.

 

[Marc Berger]

It pays back the investment:

If you are a independent with long term projects and would spend otherways a lot of money to rent equipment,
if you have one or two client who want a pub on 35mm (and are ready to give you the same amount of money, even you do it digital),
if you need to own a camera because you´re not booked out as a DOP and you want to work every day to advance your skills (you don´t always get the money directly back from your investment),
if for your daily jobs you need anyway a HPX 500 or 3000, but you want to work with 35mm lenses,
and last, but not least, if you rent it out.
You could add a lot of reasons why it pays back the investment, and I´m sure we have every possible combination in this forum, why people buy a Red.
Marc

 

[Steve Sanacore]

Making the RED pay for itself is very simple for me. Just do the math. How much does 35mm film cost these days, and then process and transfer?

Add to that the cost of renting a 435 body and see how fast it will add up to the cost of your RED. After that, it's like shooting 35mm film quality for free (other than the labor).

And this doesn't include any paying jobs you may get as DP with your camera.

I really don't see an issue at all in recouping this investment rather quickly.

 

[Ed Watkins]

I bought two REDs, rented one for a while and then sold it for a markup.
It paid for my other package.

I still have to pay back some of the more pricey accessories, but I'm under no pressure to pay back loans, and I can focus on using my gear on my projects.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

while the first camera is still struggling to survive

"struggling to survive "??

Huh?

You must be on a different planet than I am.

 

[D Namir]

Marc and Steve
Wait till you get your Red and you will see. Insurance, cables, repairs, matte box follow focus, monitors etc. It just begin with the Red you can never know when it ends.
As for your own projects this is something else. If you plan one project every year for the next 5 years and these projects will sell than you may return your investment at least from not renting a 35mm camera. But this only happen if you are a fruitful producer/director, it will not happen if you are having a Red for just having it.
As for some of us who bought it for renting we will just have to wait and see but with a camera which is still fighting for its place on the stage and with 4000 others and two "sisters" that are coming you can not be too sure.

 

[D Namir]

"struggling to survive "??

Huh?

You must be on a different planet than I am.

I guess I am. I am not in the USA and here it is a different story.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

1. The Red one camera was created to be a motion picture camera, to create images for the big screen. That's how it was presented >>> 4K!!!

Yes, it was and is presented as such. It is also presented, and used by many, for more.

2. However, from what I read people are having it to shoot their kids and family?... they have in hand a powerful tool but not more than ... to have the feeling that they are part of the desirable glamorous Hollywood-Motion-Picture-industry...?

Or maybe some of us shoot kids and family because we can since we own it. I could never justify shooting the family with 35mm film. But I can with RED. Doesn't mean the camera doesn't get used professionally and doesn't mean I bought it to feel I'm a part of the Hollywood crowd. There are always going to be hobbyists that buy such cameras for personal use, what does that matter? I bought the camera for both personal and professional use. And I'm tempted to buy another, but I'm holding off in case I want to upgrade to Epic.

3. The motion picture industry was in the last 30-40 years a rental market.

So? Everything changes. For the time being, it's still going to be a largely rental-based market. If better cameras come available for less money, then that's just great. The camera is only one piece to a very large puzzle.

4. Flooding the market with more than 4000 Red one cameras that are still in the process of building (15, 16, 17...) doesn't work for this kind of industry.

How is that "flooding" the market. They are only shipping cameras that are being purchased. So they are technically just meeting demand.

5. Working on two other models (Scarlet and Epic) while the first camera is still struggling to survive doesn't help.

Hmm... Perhaps they're working on Scarlet and Epic because the RED is a huge success and these are two more products to compliment the RED One.

I had this argument with other owners before, I quoted big rentals house, users attacked me for that because they don't like to hear that.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. A lot of people scoffed at RED in the beginning, there's still a lot of disinformation out there, but things are quickly changing. Most of the bigger rental houses these days are interested in the RED One and several have a few now. It's one more avenue of income and RED owners are just more potential rental customers. Of the rental houses in my area, one was very critical of RED up until NAB '08. The last two times I have been in there, they have offered to buy my camera and I believe they have one or two on order.

There is a big chance that in a few years 4000 people will have a camera in their hand and will be able to do nothing with it.

And there's a big chance that I could get hit by a bus while crossing the street. In a few years, my RED will have paid for itself many times over. It's not like 4000 RED One owners are going to just stop using the camera. Even if something goes very wrong and RED folds, we all still have cameras that are proving to be viable production tools every day. There are about 2000 cameras out in the wild and cruising these forums shows a very low number of actual complaints and problems. I think it will be OK... But if not, I just move on to the next best thing. I'm not sure where all the gloom and doom is coming from.

If you look at the history of the film you will find tens of formats from 9.5mm 17mm 20 something mm, 3 x projections, 360 degrees projections with syncronized 11 projections, drive-in movies etc that are nothing today. When it is film it is still 35mm mostly.
I hope I am wrong but I maybe right big time.

And this relates to RED how? RED is not introducing new film sizes or new formats, only a new codec to acquire images that drop into existing standards. It is a new codec, but it is recorded to commodity media by one very impressive camera. A new codec is something that Panasonic, Sony and others do every now and then with a fair amount of success. REDCODE is already seeing far more interest than DVCPROHD saw for the first few years of its lifespan. 35mm film has been feeling the crunch from HD production for some time, the future is all digital and RED is one giant step in that direction. 10 years from now, there will still be people shooting on film, but that will be an artistic choice and not one based on economics or image quality.

BTW... Drive-In movies are still around and they're trying to make a come-back with new sound delivery methods. Not that I really support the movement or anything, I think it kinda sucks to sit in your car and watch a movie.