Red Rant

[Rich Hasse]

Hey everybody!

I can't believe my first post is a rant! :devil: Ok, not really....

Even with the Dec 3rd announcement 2 days away, I just plunked down an order for the Canon 5D mkII. And yes, it's killing me. Being my first time buying into intechangeable lenses sytems, I wanted to buy into the Red brand. Not having to buy into another companies lenses, throwing good money away.

The problem is, I had no options to go the Red Route!

I did price out a Red One prior to my purchase and it came to $32k. If it was $13k I would have done it. I still wouldn't have be able to justify or know if the ROI would make it a wise choice. Though I certainly would have been happy with the purchase!!! Because, I've been waiting for years to buy a Red system.

If you folks could come out with something more affordable you'll have a new customer. My wishlist is for a camera that has a full frame 4k (12mp) sensor with the 120 frame rate processing. Reason for coming down from 24mp Monstro is larger pixel sizing. And, basically who needs all those extra pixels really? The full frame sensor for great depth of field. Also, for compatibility with all FF lenses I'm stuck buying in the meantime!!!!.... grrrr

With all that you'll make a new customer!!!

 

[Gunleik Groven]

Thing is, then Canon 5D is possibly just the right thing for you

No rant @ all.

Stuff costs what it costs. Some make a great ROI on the RED, because they're already in that market or need it for a project.
If you're not, I think NOW is possibly not the best time to jump on the bandwagon if you cannot answer yes on the above questions....

Enjoy your Canon!

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Sometimes ... you get what you pay for.

Below is the 5D.

 

[Jose Alvarez]

This has already been addressed (many times) already so I won't get into a long argument, but the main point is this. What is MORE important for you:

- Do you want a great Cinema Video camera that can create GREAT moving images and good still pictures?

or

- Do you want a great Still Picture camera that can shoot good video?

Is that simple. If you want a great Cine camera then get prepared to pay more since the technology is much more demanding to achive great Cinema images. If you are happy with great still pictures and "adequate" video, then the technology will cost a LOT less. At least that is how I persive the differences between the "yet to be available" Scarlet and the new Canon/Nikon products.

Xoce

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Is that simple. If you want a great Cine camera then get prepared to pay more since the technology is much more demanding to achive great Cinema images. If you are happy with great still pictures and "adequate" video, then the technology will cost a LOT less. At least that is how I persive the differences between the "yet to be available" Scarlet and the new Canon/Nikon products.

Xoce

I agree. And I do love Canon & Nikon still cameras. There are just so many "adequate" video solutions. And sure, if I made a DSLR - I'd put "adequate" video in it - because others are doing it. Most soccer moms are not looking at test charts.

If you are a FILMMAKER, you are in a hyper-competitive world with the production value bar rising almost daily. And yes, I know someone might make a great movie on a 5D - and you can tell a great story even on ... DV - just be aware that the "moving image" quality bar is rising fast when you calculate your ROI. With the distribution model in a state of "shake-up" - a wise producer would do anything in his/her power to make their film look as good as possible in terms of image quality. "adequate" video is not really strategic choice.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks for posting that Mark, that's very interesting indeed....

Graeme

 

[David Birdy]

I agree. And I do love Canon & Nikon still cameras. There are just so many "adequate" video solutions. And sure, if I made a DSLR - I'd put "adequate" video in it - because others are doing it. Most soccer moms are not looking at test charts.

If you are a FILMMAKER, you are in a hyper-competitive world with the production value bar rising almost daily. And yes, I know someone might make a great movie on a 5D - and you can tell a great story even on ... DV - just be aware that the "moving image" quality bar is rising fast when you calculate your ROI. With the distribution model in a state of "shake-up" - a wise producer would do anything in his/her power to make their film look as good as possible in terms of image quality. "adequate" video is not really strategic choice.

Very much on point Mark!

Dave

 

[Michael Schrengohst]

Kyle,

Are you a photographer or cinematographer?
What is your experience level?
Do you edit?
No one camera will be a silver bullet.
I have over 30 years of experience and have
owned dozens of still & motion cameras.
I have stopped buying motion cameras and
only rent them as needed. I have done several
RED projects and rented them from owner-operators
who knew the camera. I am just not as fascinated
about the gear aspect anymore. I am more
fascinated with the process and the end result.

 

[jpp]

If you are a FILMMAKER, you are in a hyper-competitive world with the production value bar rising almost daily. And yes, I know someone might make a great movie on a 5D - and you can tell a great story even on ... DV - just be aware that the "moving image" quality bar is rising fast when you calculate your ROI. With the distribution model in a state of "shake-up" - a wise producer would do anything in his/her power to make their film look as good as possible in terms of image quality. "adequate" video is not really strategic choice.

Mark, I agree on the role of the producer, to do less than try to achieve the best possible image quality is not only unwise but downright irresponsible. But is there anything in the current market for non-Hollywood material that leads you to believe that production value sells?

I don't take any pleasure in arguing that a non-Hollywood film can look like crap and not suffer for it, while far more visually accomplished material flops. And the idea isn't to have that debate again.

But I'm just wondering if you see market indications that I don't? A horribly competitive market, and diminishing theatrical distribution opportunities, yes. But where are the "production value" indicators as measures of commercial value?

 

[Dan Hudgins]

MPEG-4 Licence

MPEG-4 Licence

Sometimes ... you get what you pay for.

Below is the 5D.

About the Licence, does that mean that someone who uses the camera to make a movie that will be sold for profit is in violation of the MPEG-4 Licence?

If you are in violation of the Licence what would the penalty be?

Is this thing a "booby trap" so they can come after people who use the camera to make something that is latter sold?

Is there a R3D Licence also for commercial use of R3D, and if so what is the Fee?

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

But where are the "production value" indicators as measures of commercial value?

This is obviously not black and white. But I will tell you that it is easier to negotiate for a higher sales advance when your film looks "more expensive." If you film looks like it cost $100,000 - to get a sales advance higher than that - requires a bidding war. Many buyers in foreign markets watch the trailer, and decide if it's worth their time to watch "part" or all of your film before buying. There is a tangible, positive "reaction" to movies that "looks expensive". The initial reaction is usually based on a combination of cinematography, locations and production design - and then things like impressive VFX. This creates a "how much did this cost" subtext - which is in the minds of the buyers while they watch the performances, directing and storytelling. There's always exceptions - films that look rough, raw and cheap that deliver and perform financially - but that is even more rare these days.

 

[jpp]

But I will tell you that it is easier to negotiate for a higher sales advance when your film looks "more expensive."

I was thinking more of market place performance, where virtually no money is made on the film by the producers, but it creates opportunities. And we know that distributors in this business will do their very best to ensure that the producers never see any money....

But you're right: there's no question that if a film looks cheap, distributors will try to acquire it for next to nothing, with the caveat that resolution alone, without the full component of production design, locations, lighting, etc., probably won't be decisive here. But that's what a good producer is for....

 

[Robert Permenter]

Now I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that if you buy equipment that uses MPEG 4 compression, the manufacturer has paid for the licensing of that CODEC. But then again it does say "personal use". So they might get you there if you make something that pulls in cash. Of course I could be way off. Usually am.

 

[jpp]

Only a lawyer knows for sure, but it sounds as if you might need a license to distribute the program using their codec, but that they have no controlling rights in the material simply because it was acquired with their codec.

There are plenty of reasons not to shoot a feature with this camera, but it's inconceivable that the companies would assert, or that the courts would uphold, the right of a codec owner to control material acquired with that codec.

Think of the implications. It would effectively destroy intellectual property law, including U.S. copyright law. Everyone from Bic pen to Kodak to Microsoft Word would be claiming rights to material created with their products.

 

[Rich Hasse]

Thanks for all the insight folks! Yup, my post wasn't as much a rant as it was a wish list. I'm just having fun with all the "Redism's"

It wasn't my point to discuss ROI beyond my singular point. That even if I couldn't justify the cost and it didn't make monetary sense, I still would have been happy to buy it! That I would or will have, great pleasure in being part of the Red Clan

Yes, the rental idea has been tossed about. Especially when there seems to be quite a few in the NYC area. Though being new to cinematography, the learning curve appears to be steep. Steep enough that you can't learn with rental gear. I'd burn through so much money with rentals it appears to be more cost effective to buy.

For the legalities question, I'd think it was more about using the technology on Hardware to create the file. Not in it's distribution afterward. Once edited and recoded there's no claim to be made right?

And for those who might have thought this was a Red vs. 5d thread, it wasn't. It was to illustrate a market there missing out on. I know it's an apples and oranges discussion.

Though I had a thought about the 3d idea. Couldn't we use to 5d's for that now. Especially with how close together they could be? Just an idea....

 

[Rich Hasse]

Oh, and I would like to say that I'm fully aware it's not Jim's fault my broke ass can't afford on of his Red One's today! I realize there's some pretty well to do folks on here who spend hundreds of thousands on equipment.

If the markup on these is really astronomic, say 400% or more, then well toss us a bone fella'