Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Birger Lens Mount Reservations

jaadgy akanni said:
I spoke to Erik about this a while back and he told me it works quite well on the RedRock M2, so I sent him my Brevis35 for him to test the mount on. He found that the Brevis35's carbon tube needed to be shorter in order to get the right FFD. However, since the tests were done with the Canon, which requires a FFD of 44mm, and my order is for a Nikon mount, whose FFD is 2.5 mm longer than that of the Canon, I'll probably won't have to get shorter a carbon tube. At any rate, the Birger mount will work with probably any of the current 35mm adapters.
Click to expand...

Holy crap! If that's true, that's pretty darn rad!
 
Times are exciting!

Mark Crabtree said:
Anybody have an idea where I can come up with a macho box of chocolates?
Click to expand...

We could all chip in and hire a chocolate fountain for the Red Team and the Birger Team. $895 for the big one...

ccfvideo.jpg


http://www.californiachocolatefountains.com/So_Cal_Fountain_Rental_Info.htm

And if you want something really big, take this for inspiration:

# The largest individual chocolate weighs 5,980 kg . It was made by Nestle (Italy) and was displayed at the Perugina factory, San Sisto, Italy, on 26 October 2003. (Guiness World Records)
# The largest chocolate bar ever manufactured weighed 5,026 lbs and was exhibited by Elah-Dufour United Food Companies at Eurochocolate in Turin, Italy in March 2000
# The largest box of chocolates ever made was a Frango mint chocolates box weighing 3,226 lbs, created by Marshall Field's, Chicago, Illinois, USA on November 14th 2002. The box contained 90,090 individual chocolates. (Guiness World Records)
# On April 4th, 1996, the Rotary Club of Piet Retief, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, made a chocolate and marshmallow Easter egg which was just over 25 ft high. The egg weighed 8,968 lbs and was supported by an internal steel frame. (Guiness World Records)
# The Northwest Fudge Factory in Ontario, Canada, cretaed a slab of fudge that weighed 2,002 lbs making it the record-holding largest slab of fudge. The chocolate and vanilla swirl fudge measured 166ft long, 9 inches wide and 3 inches high. the fudge took a total of 86 hours to prepare and 13 individuals to pour into shape. (Guiness World Records)
Click to expand...
 
jesus.. i know i said you guys were nuts about 80 pages back, but now i really mean it :)

heh heh heh. Seriously though... who knew the relationship between a Camera Mount and a Camera Company would cause such global hysteria?
 
birgerEngineer said:
Until Jim and RED came along, I had no interest in Hollywood. The rental-oriented high-dollar low-volume model just did not interest me. Having seen what Jim had already accomplished with this camera, and Jim's vision and passion for RED, I, like all of the reservation holders, wanted to be a part of his journey.
Click to expand...
beautiful fairy tale.. but do not forget we're making your mount come up the stairs.. and we are NOT hollywood..
 
YOU might accept, Mark, but this guy will never, ever work in Hollywood. I want absolutely nothing to do with that place. They can hire me to write and direct the films I, personally, want to make, but I'll never make 'em there.

Stephen
 
If it was easier get $10-20 million to make a movie outside of Hollywood, I wouldn't bother to try make my way into that fold.

If a person wants to make small intimate films that are crippled by limited production values and mediocre talent- a microbudget film is an option. Sell your car and rack up your credit cards... but make damn sure you really like the film because it won't make money and it will take you a long while to get to the financial position to make another. I also think that it borders on fraudulent to tell "investors" any different.

And we can't use films like The Blair Witch Project as the basis for any useful metrics here. If you take into account that there have been in excess of 10,000 microbudget feature films shot since then, the odds are as bad as the lottery. I also have to point out that this was a truly awful movie that took advantage of ignorance in the general public and a relative dearth of online promotion at that time. Five years earlier or five years later and it probably wouldn't even have made it direct-to-video/DVD.

The longer I study the industry, the more sure I am that the sweet spot is in that $10-20 million dollar range. You can afford the production values and talent to create a quality movie that, if everything clicks, can make the investors back enough money to let you attract investors in your next film. You don't have to lie to them about how your $500,000 film will make millions.

As you start dropping below $10 million, the budget starts dictating too many of your decisions. One of the key being that you can't afford to pick from the best actors for the part- and as much as I make fun of the flaky psyche of actors, it is a tough job and there are only a few hundred who do it well. When you narrow it down to those who actually match gender and age to the character you need them to portray... you are lucky if there are a dozen people on the planet who can do that part justice. These actors are always in demand (unless their aforementioned flaky psyche makes them too unreliable) and there is no way that you'll be able to fill your roster with them unless you can bring some money to the table along with your fantastic script. Even with money, you'll struggle to get great actors for the protagonist and antagonist - and pray that you can get "good enough" for the supporting cast. And this works all the way through the crew as well - a great DP, director, editor... all of these are highly skilled creatives who usually have job offers to choose from (okay, less so right now with the current union uncertainty)

When you go above that $20 million range, then it is marketing that starts to take over. The money for the actors suddenly goes up while the pool of actors to choose from actually goes down. Yes, Nathan Fillian may actually be a better fit for the character than Johnny Depp and we could get him for ten cents on the dollar... but Nathan hasn't opened like Johnny has so you'll have to pay out at least $10 million and points to get the more bankable actor, not the best actor, for the part. Note I'm not saying anything about the "best actor", but the "best actor for the part". And then they tell you to find a part for Paris Hilton because she is back in the tabloids again (I think I just threw up a little... at the back of my throat).

An FX heavy film will move that bracket up to the $30-$40 million range without the marketing taking over since the FX will have their own market value to compensate for that extra investment.

Vancouver needs to develop an indigenous studio system that produces ten or more films at this level each year. It is vital to the long term viability of film production here since service work is going to be harder and harder to attract against global competition and a strong Canadian dollar.

Without a local studio system that can support a good number of $10-20 million features in local production, Hollywood is the only viable option.

So if Hollywood calls, I've got a bug-out-bag packed and can get to the airport in about an hour- depending on traffic.
 
The movie business is stale with the same actors and directors on display year after year. One of the things I like most about documetaries is a lack of tabloid over exposed movie stars. Don't get me wrong, Hollywood has many accomplished actors I would love to work with, but I think there is a lot more room in movies for newcommers than conventional wisdom dictates. There have been many instances when a foreign film captures the box office with actors totally unknown to the domestic audience. It's just too big a risk for a 30 mill Hollywood picture to use totally unknowns. So, it just doesn't happen. Hollywood minimizes it's risk by employing well known "professional" actors with at least one proven blockbuster related name. So we are accustomed to seeing an unknown cast in just one of two possible scenarios. 1. Foreign film/moderate to big budget. 2. Domestic film/micro budget. I think the dessimination of the Red One camera will open the door to a third option. It is third option that Hollywood fears. It is the option Stanley Kubrick would have been very exited about. A way to make a movie with a very small budget, using minimal crew, unknown actors, a lot of ingenuity and a no compromise camera system like the Red One.
 
Hollywood has known real fear for the longest time and Birger Engineering has nothing to do with it. It's standard operating procedure in Hollywood to operate in pre-emptive strike panic mode.

Nobody takes anything for granted anymore. In Hollywood, or elsewhere.
 
Jarred Land said:
heh heh heh. Seriously though... who knew the relationship between a Camera Mount and a Camera Company would cause such global hysteria?
Click to expand...
OK, so to make it a little more global...
just got our "Delivery" notice.. that means I need our Birger mount too!
Now I can start to get anxious as well... only been waiting 2000+ posts.... :help: :usd:
 
CWS, I love your avatar.
 
Well, I wouldn't stand Hollywood is afraid of anything. When it sells, they buy, they distribute and that's it. Perhaps on the distribution, they can have some trouble there when the web and emerging display technologies are hurting their revenues. In this case (Birger), the only industry which can feel some pain into the pocket, will come onto such revenues. Those who have been pricing their products almost exclusively in box office dollars (euros or whatever).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top