Epic-X-S35 and Epic S35

[Chris Kenny]

You can take all of those numbers and make them even smaller -- maybe he's got $10,000 total saved to rent for a one-time production, but what he needs to rent would cost him $30,000 total to buy. Even if he could sell everything back at 100% and essentially have spent zero money, it's all pointless if he doesn't have the original $30,000.

Spending $10K on a short-term rental of something you could buy for $30K is obviously pretty inefficient. In the long run, what I think happens is some combination of:

1) It won't be $30K eventually, it will be $10K or $5K, and our Struggling Indie Filmmaker can just put the thing on a credit card, or
2) Business models emerge in which creative types pool their resources though forming small companies that intend to develop multiple projects, or similar structures.

And I wouldn't call a sub-$200,000 feature "midrange".

Well, the "midrange" was more in reference to the $100K commercials. Which you also might not consider midrange, I don't know. But this difference in perspective sort of tells the entire story, doesn't it? You're approaching this all from the high-end market, which is the last place where the effects will be felt. Down in the trenches, the world is changing practically on a daily basis, and the introduction of Red's new gear could well have a major impact on the viability of rental businesses, if they jump the wrong way.

But sure, if you want to say that the rental model will disappear for those small productions, that may happen -- in fact, it's already happening. But what you said was ""The collapse of the camera rental market is, in fact, part of the democratization of filmmaking", suggesting that there would be a collapse of the entire camera rental market. That's a much broader statement than saying that the rental model for small-budget projects will disappear, leaving the rental houses to cater only to major feature and TV productions.

The thing of it is, the "small budget" stuff is probably more than 90% of the market by volume. And in this thread, I think we're mostly discussing the small shops that own Red gear and are considering future upgrade paths; those shops mostly, I think, rent to that market. So if that market largely stops renting gear over the next five years, or rental prices drop substantially because cheap gear has gotten so good, something will have occurred which I think could be fairly termed a "collapse".

And this probably will eventually filter up, it will just take longer, not least because some major productions will still insist on shooting on $250K worth of camera gear even in world where $15K of camera gear can produce a better image than anything currently on the market at any price (i.e. the world of five years from now, probably), mostly for prestige reasons.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Spending $10K on a short-term rental of something you could buy for $30K is obviously pretty inefficient.

Not if you only have the $10,000 and you are only making one project in a limited time span. The point is to get the movie made by any means necessary.

I once shot a feature on a pro camera package worth $100,000 that we rented for $10,000 for a month. The budget for the entire movie was only $150,000 -- was the director supposed to have spent $100,000 of it on buying a camera package when he could get it for $10,000, when the point was to get the movie made, not own a camera package?

If I wanted to go out an shoot a short film this weekend on a Red One, am I supposed to first spend $30,000 or so on a Red package before I can make my weekend short? Or should I just spend several hundred dollars and rent one from someone for the weekend?

Not everyone wants to get into equipment ownership. Even in the smallest of scales like the one-time short film idea I mentioned, odds are high that there will always be someone that will rent a camera from someone else rather than buy it themselves. People rent all sorts of things in this world, large and small, for various reasons.

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

Just to clarify I was mainly talking about small productions and indi films, and more pointing this out to the small European countries reality, it works like this over this end.
its very rear you will find 2 cameras on set , and only the exact equipment needed for the job, and well yes if something goes wrong they rent from another guy straight away as there is a lot of offering here and not many jobs for everyone.
But this is just this sides reality.
A lot of production companies own their own equipment for years now and they only rent whats needed for the job.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

So there are no camera rental houses in Europe?

And I wonder how Mark Pederson of Offhollywood here would feel about this notion that the camera rental business is going to collapse?
http://news.creativecow.net/story/862308

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

Talking about Greece, there are a few but the services they provide are not any better than what most camera and other equipment owners provide, and by the way because camera owners are going together with their equipment they know what they are doing and take care of their equipment best way.
The production rental houses rent their cams but at this end they dont really support their equipment best way, it hapent before many times with film cams, lenses e.t.c.
But talking Europe generally its more likely to be a different story.

 

[Chris Kenny]

Not everyone wants to get into equipment ownership. Even in the smallest of scales like the one-time short film idea I mentioned, odds are high that there will always be someone that will rent a camera from someone else rather than buy it themselves. People rent all sorts of things in this world, large and small, for various reasons.

OK, but again I'm going to point to the still photo camera market as an example of what happens when gear prices aren't all that high. There are lots of photo shoots that are, for instance, only a day or a handful of days, or even just a few hours. Yet virtually all pro photographers own their own gear, rather than renting. Even enthusiastic hobbyists own their own gear, and if they can't afford to buy the stuff the pros use, they don't rent the stuff the pros use, they buy cheaper "prosumer" stuff which is, after all, probably better than what the pros had a few years ago because of how fast the tech is advancing.

And you see pros increasingly using cheaper gear. Something considered a serious pro-level SLR body used to be ~$10K, then $5K, now with the 5D Mk. II it's more like $2.5K. And this dynamic doesn't just apply to hobbyist or low-budget pro photography. While there might be some small amount of work done with large format digital backs or whatever, even very high-budget photo work is being done with the 5D.

Now, of course photo gear has been pretty cheap forever, as compared with cine gear; this didn't start with digital. But this is sort of my point. This is what a market that is fully adapted to cheap equipment (and selling beyond a tiny number of deep pocket customers) really looks like.

I think you could really see a lot of indie filmmakers buying bare bones S35 Scarlet packages (especially if the electronic Canon and Nikon mounts turn out well, making lens ownership reasonably inexpensive) and 2/3" Scarlet packages rather than renting Epics. And the same logic will eventually apply to e.g. commercial production companies, though organizational inertia and concern over client perception (probably mostly technically unfounded) will mean they won't be as quick as the indie filmmakers.

And I wonder how Mark Pederson of Offhollywood here would feel about this notion that the camera rental business is going to collapse?
http://news.creativecow.net/story/862308

If I understand their business correctly, Off Hollywood has a huge value-added proposition on top of equipment rental. This is precisely the type of business model adaption necessary for continued success. As far as I can see they appear quite well positioned for this transition. If 30,000 people bought (and magically received) Red cameras tomorrow and the rental market completely tanked, they'd probably laugh all the way to the bank on the proceeds of the massive increase in Red-based consulting and post work they'd see.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi,

I shot in Athens last year, Arri 235,435, Cooke S4's Optimo zooms all great and fairly new. The lighting & grip equipment was the best & newest I have ever used, all rented locally of course. New steadycam as well....
Far better than I can rent in Switzerland, the richest country in the world per capita.

Stephen

Talking about Greece, there are a few but the services they provide are not any better than what most camera and other equipment owners provide, and by the way because camera owners are going together with their equipment they know what they are doing and take care of their equipment best way.
The production rental houses rent their cams but at this end they dont really support their equipment best way, it hapent before many times with film cams, lenses e.t.c.
But talking Europe generally its more likely to be a different story.

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

Where from did you rent your equipment? There are some places with new equipment .
Was it just steadicam rental or a Greek steadicam op? There are some great steadicam ops here with good equipment but they are owners.
Michael Tsimberopoulos is one of the best if not the best in my opinion.
I was talking mostly about red rental.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Where from did you rent your equipment? There are some places with new equipment .
Was it just steadicam rental or a Greek steadicam op? There are some great steadicam ops here with good equipment but they are owners.
Michael Tsimberopoulos is one of the best if not the best in my opinion.
I was talking mostly about red rental.

Cameras KARAMANOS LIGHTS
Lights, it was a gaffer, I dont have his name but the best boy was Michalis Christoforatos, they work together alot. The equipment was totally new.
Michael Tsimberopoulos was the steadycam operator.

Stephen

 

[constantine Tirintzis]

Ok Karamanos has some great stuff if you are willing to pay for it, but he had also some very bad conditioned equipment at the past , and very bad support.
He has a lot of money though so he keeps buying new stuff specially ARRI cameras, he is a good customer of ARRI.
Some of his stuff suck big time some is brand new.
Dont know if he can keep this new in the future.
Michael is a friend of mine and a great person and steadicam operator dont mind me saying world wide, he owns and takes care of his equipment and owns the best.
Deserves the best as well.Good choice.

 

[Stephen Williams]

The equipment was not expensive, the local crew came through a production co that stuffed us big time, probably 3 times the going rate. The key staff I flew in were cheaper including flights hotels & travel days.

Ok Karamanos has some great stuff if you are willing to pay for it, but he had also some very bad conditioned equipment at the past , and very bad support.
He has a lot of money though so he keeps buying new stuff specially ARRI cameras, he is a good customer of ARRI.
Some of his stuff suck big time some is brand new.
Dont know if he can keep this new in the future.
Michael is a friend of mine and a great person and steadicam operator dont mind me saying world wide, he owns and takes care of his equipment and owns the best.
Deserves the best as well.Good choice.

 

[Fran Kuhn]

Once equipment gets cheap enough, rental just stops making sense. I mean, do photo photographers even charge separate rental fees for the gear they show up with? My impression is they usually don't, at least if they're just bringing a body and some lenses. And this makes sense. I mean, a pro photographer has to spend, what? Maybe $5K every two years to maintain a reasonable package? Much simpler for everyone to just build that overhead into the day rate.

Hi Chris,

Great responses, very well written, and a very thought provoking topic. FWIW, I'm not sure about the typical wedding photographer, but photographers working in advertising absolutely do charge for equipment. With digital, this includes computer workstations for acquisition and post. When trying to cut costs on a bid, the last thing to be touched is the photographer's fee which is always a separate line item. BTW digital has made it more expensive than ever to keep equipment current. I have to invest about 18K again this year to get the new Canon Mark IVs to replace the Mark IIIs I bought last year. My 11 year-old Canon 1V film cameras still work as well as they did when new and make a better image than any of them, LOL.

-Fran

 

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Chris,
Great responses, very well written, and a very thought provoking topic. FWIW, I'm not sure about the typical wedding photographer, but photographers working in advertising absolutely do charge for equipment.

Hmm... interesting. Well, the whole issue of owner-operators breaking out equipment rentals vs. building them into a day rate is a bit of a side issue anyway. I imagine how the invoice is broken up has more to do with taxes and client rate negotiations than anything, since the money is going to the same guy anyway.

Hi Chris,
BTW digital has made it more expensive than ever to keep equipment current. I have to invest about 18K again this year to get the new Canon Mark IVs to replace the Mark IIIs I bought last year. My 11 year-old Canon 1V film cameras still work as well as they did when new and make a better image than any of them, LOL.

Yeah, that is sort of a bizarre dynamic. Digital has an overall lower cost for photo, I would think, but more of the cost is now in hardware rather than consumables (camera bodies rather than film stock and processing), which sort of shifts around who bears the costs and how they're paid off over time.

 

[Fran Kuhn]

Yeah, that is sort of a bizarre dynamic. Digital has an overall lower cost for photo, I would think, but more of the cost is now in hardware rather than consumables (camera bodies rather than film stock and processing), which sort of shifts around who bears the costs and how they're paid off over time.

Yeah, there's definitely a change happening, this whole digital mindset. It actually ends up costing the client more to shoot digitally, though not entirely because of the cameras. We end up shooting a lot more because it's "free"--no film and processing. I just finished a one-day shoot in downtown LA for a major motorcycle manufacturer. 1900-plus captures took 2 1/2 days to edit, add metadata and process and proof. Post for film would have been half that. Not only that, but we ended up using the images from early and late in the day--just like when we used to shoot film. The difference now is we keep going all day because it's digital and that means "free". I end up sifting through a pile of crappy images we never would have wasted our time shooting on film. That's progress.:crying:

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Chris,

BTW digital has made it more expensive than ever to keep equipment current. I have to invest about 18K again this year to get the new Canon Mark IVs to replace the Mark IIIs I bought last year. My 11 year-old Canon 1V film cameras still work as well as they did when new and make a better image than any of them, LOL.

-Fran

Hi Fran,

I always find the Digital is cheaper myth hard to swallow. I have spent way more (5 x at least) on Digital still cameras than I ever did on film & processing.

Stephen

 

[Chris Kenny]

I always find the Digital is cheaper myth hard to swallow. I have spent way more (5 x at least) on Digital still cameras than I ever did on film & processing.

Not buying it. With professional color film stock and development, you're looking at at least $0.20-$0.30 per exposure, even if you don't print much. A $2500 digital SLR body pays for itself at that rate in weeks, not months or years, for someone who uses it heavily. The process of selecting and enhancing shots and sending them around for approval is also substantially streamlined.

Of course if you (or your clients) choose to shoot 10x as much with digital, total costs might be higher. But that's not digital being more expensive; that's just an example of people spending more money on something overall when it becomes a better value, which is not remotely unusual. For instance, the middle class spends more on air travel than it did, say, 50 years ago. This is not because air travel has gotten more expensive, but because it has gotten so much cheaper that people who used to buy little or none now purchase quite a bit.

 

[Fran Kuhn]

Not buying it. With professional color film stock and development, you're looking at at least $0.20-$0.30 per exposure, even if you don't print much. A $2500 digital SLR body pays for itself at that rate in weeks, not months or years, for someone who uses it heavily. The process of selecting and enhancing shots and sending them around for approval is also substantially streamlined.

Hi Chris,

I'm in agreement. That's why in the first sentence of my reply I said it's not entirely because of the camera. It's more the "it's digital, so it's free" mindset that most clients can't seem to get past. 1900 images in one day is about 52 rolls of 35mm film, or about 3-4 times what I would have shot on film in one day. It's the editing and post that are making digital more expensive, and not always with better results. There was a greater awareness of cost when clients realized it was 50 cents or a dollar every time the button got pushed. Or, with Polaroid, a few dollars, LOL. It definitely doesn't always streamline the approval process from my experience. Clients and agency often seem to fret of miniscule differences in images for days and sometimes weeks. Anyway, just my experience, but what do I know? I'll leave it at that, sorry to get off-topic, too.

-Fran

 

[Chris Kenny]

Hi Chris,

I'm in agreement. That's why in the first sentence of my reply I said it's not entirely because of the camera. It's more the "it's digital, so it's free" mindset that most clients can't seem to get past. 1900 images in one day is about 52 rolls of 35mm film, or about 3-4 times what I would have shot on film in one day. It's the editing and post that are making digital more expensive, and not always with better results. There was a greater awareness of cost when clients realized it was 50 cents or a dollar every time the button got pushed. Or, with Polaroid, a few dollars, LOL. It definitely doesn't always streamline the approval process from my experience. Clients and agency often seem to fret of miniscule differences in images for days and sometimes weeks. Anyway, just my experience, but what do I know? I'll leave it at that, sorry to get off-topic, too.

To bring things (slightly) more back on-topic, one of course sees this phenomenon with film/video, especially with file-based recording where you're not even worrying about burning through tape stock. Of course Red transcoding services are usually billed per minute of footage, so at least in that case the client does bear some of the additional costs of shooting a lot more. (The assistant editor probably still isn't getting paid any more, though.)

 

[Stephen Williams]

Hi Chris,

I can usually shoot 35mm for less than others shoot digital, being focused on what you really need IMO is more important than shooting loads of crap because you can.

For personal stills I shot less than 10 rolls a year, depreciation on digital cameras costs $1000 a year.

Stephen

Not buying it. With professional color film stock and development, you're looking at at least $0.20-$0.30 per exposure, even if you don't print much. A $2500 digital SLR body pays for itself at that rate in weeks, not months or years, for someone who uses it heavily. The process of selecting and enhancing shots and sending them around for approval is also substantially streamlined.

Of course if you (or your clients) choose to shoot 10x as much with digital, total costs might be higher. But that's not digital being more expensive; that's just an example of people spending more money on something overall when it becomes a better value, which is not remotely unusual. For instance, the middle class spends more on air travel than it did, say, 50 years ago. This is not because air travel has gotten more expensive, but because it has gotten so much cheaper that people who used to buy little or none now purchase quite a bit.

 

[Chris Kenny]

I can usually shoot 35mm for less than others shoot digital, being focused on what you really need IMO is more important than shooting loads of crap because you can.

But this makes your shooting style cheaper than other people's shooting styles. It doesn't make film cheaper than digital.

For personal stills I shot less than 10 rolls a year, depreciation on digital cameras costs $1000 a year.

OK, but other people shoot more than that in a day. Even on film.

Anyway, I don't really know how this thread switched from discussing the future structure of the rental market (which is interesting and important) to film vs. digital (which is yesterday's news and has been discussed to death).