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 :)

Feel robbed

James T Mather said:
I'm going to be wary of ordering dragon initially - it'll probably drop in price down the line and I can pick one up for the price of a can of coke. happy days.
Click to expand...

At $6k the Dragon would pay for itself in 2 weeks extra of rental. I would be throwing money out the window if I waited.
 
Steve Das said:
Hmm..not sure if you mean this..but comes off as incredibly bitter. All over a lousy $10-15k ?

As I am sure you're well aware of most projects come together with director..producer..
and DP relationships that have developed over many years..decades even.
And having a camera doesn't even get a newbies foot in that door. Just maybe a Toe.
.
And the amounts of money spent on even the lowest level of production with a
no name cast can gobble up the $10-15k cost of an outfitted Scarlet or used R-1MX package
in just one day of production shooting.
Click to expand...

I'm responding to a post militantly churning out the old nonsense that access to high-end camera tech has much to do with making a film or working as a DP and that there was some kind of fiendish cabal plotting to keep talent out.

Sadly, there is a ton more financially involved in making a film than simply having access to a broadcast camera body - generally camera equipment is the least of your problems, once everything else is in place to make a film. Camera rental houses are usually only too happy to donate to young filmmakers where I come from - assuming they go in prepared. It may differ elsewhere.

It seems that many people think there was some elitist conspiracy against them, jealously keeping enormously talented but underfunded people out of the cushy film game - as though the price of the tech was the only thing preventing them. Fifteen years ago, none of us owned cameras but low-budget films still got made. I know, I shot lots of them. I built a path as a DP shooting on 16mm, 35mm, Super 8, HVX200, whatever. I earned the money to buy Red cameras through working as a cameraless DP and then went to the bank and took out a loan. I didn't have a trust fund or family bank account to pay for it.

However, if the argument is true, now that the tech has been available for quite a while where are all these films? The nouvelle-nouvelle vague if you will? The technology floodgates have been open for quite a while and much of what we see is endless rear-of-head shallow DOF shots in the park drowning in fashionable flares chucked in over some Sigur Ros in some unimaginative attempt to mimic Terence Malick. It's a fallacious argument is the point I was making - where technology is seen as the barrier to success, rather than drive and determination to get a film made worth watching. No working directors I know own cameras. In my experience, if anything the opposite is true - when no-one had a camera then people really were hired for what they brought to the table. Now everyone seems to think that owning a camera will put them in demand and break the stranglehold of a talentless, protectionist elite. It's like saying that there is a guitarist conspiracy to keep talented musicians down simply because not everyone can afford a Gibson Les Paul. In my opinion the argument is specious.

That particular comment had nothing to do with 10-15k - that was your presumption. Sure, from a personal financial standpoint I'm not thrilled at recent developments at Red but that wasn't the point of that post. I have addressed that directly elsewhere. I'm not that elliptical in my comments.
 
Thats why I can't understand the complaints, the Dragon is being unleashed in what, a few months? Like all the values won't come back when its released? They are probably just trying liquidate all the MX sensors since the whole line is being replaced with the Dragon based sensors. I really think all this hubbub is kind of crazy when you all know the Dragon is so close...
 
James T Mather said:
I'm responding to a post militantly churning out the old nonsense that access to high-end camera tech has much to do with making a film or working as a DP and that there was some kind of fiendish cabal plotting to keep talent out.

Sadly, there is a ton more financially involved in making a film than simply having access to a broadcast camera body - generally camera equipment is the least of your problems, once everything else is in place to make a film. Camera rental houses are usually only too happy to donate to young filmmakers where I come from - assuming they go in prepared. It may differ elsewhere.

It seems that many people think there was some elitist conspiracy against them, jealously keeping enormously talented but underfunded people out of the cushy film game - as though the price of the tech was the only thing preventing them. Fifteen years ago, none of us owned cameras but low-budget films still got made. I know, I shot lots of them. I built a path as a DP shooting on 16mm, 35mm, Super 8, HVX200, whatever. I earned the money to buy Red cameras through working as a cameraless DP and then went to the bank and took out a loan. I didn't have a trust fund or family bank account to pay for it.

However, if the argument is true, now that the tech has been available for quite a while where are all these films? The nouvelle-nouvelle vague if you will? The technology floodgates have been open for quite a while and much of what we see is endless rear-of-head shallow DOF shots in the park drowning in fashionable flares chucked in over some Sigur Ros in some unimaginative attempt to mimic Terence Malick. It's a fallacious argument is the point I was making - where technology is seen as the barrier to success, rather than drive and determination to get a film made worth watching. No working directors I know own cameras. In my experience, if anything the opposite is true - when no-one had a camera then people really were hired for what they brought to the table. Now everyone seems to think that owning a camera will put them in demand and break the stranglehold of a talentless, protectionist elite. It's like saying that there is a guitarist conspiracy to keep talented musicians down simply because not everyone can afford a Gibson Les Paul. In my opinion the argument is specious.

That particular comment had nothing to do with 10-15k - that was your presumption. Sure, from a personal financial standpoint I'm not thrilled at recent developments at Red but that wasn't the point of that post. I have addressed that directly elsewhere. I'm not that elliptical in my comments.
Click to expand...


Are the cameras not still kicking everyone's a$$? Add a dash of your own skill and you should be fine. Waste of energy man - things are getting better faster and cheaper... You should still be able to charge good rates if you are a rental house, it's not like your gear turned into zero $''s -- let's be real.
 
You only loose money if you try to sell. same as real estate. The housing market went to hell, the value of my house went down. Poor me. I still live there, it still serves a purpose for which it was intended, asd I was willing to pay the asking price for it. I have not lost any money, the money I had in my account is still there the day after the price reductions. Same with the EPIC. Did you business just become less liquid? Did your asset value to the banks become less? Yes. Can you do anything about it other than come to reduser and bitch about it? No. So quit it, and go make some money to pay it off even faster. RED is selling these things to be used. Their value comes from the work that the camera does, not its resale value after a certain number of months. They didn't create a piece of gear to invest in and get a monetized return. Your ROI is on the screen when you work with the video it shot.

Besides, the new prices can't be doing much to the marketplace yet, as it seems there is little inventory to be shipped!
 
Unleash the DRAGON!!! I worship thee... bathe me in riches and cinematic glory.
 
Matt Gerard said:
You only loose money if you try to sell. same as real estate. The housing market went to hell, the value of my house went down. Poor me. I still live there, it still serves a purpose for which it was intended, asd I was willing to pay the asking price for it. I have not lost any money, the money I had in my account is still there the day after the price reductions. Same with the EPIC. Did you business just become less liquid? Did your asset value to the banks become less? Yes. Can you do anything about it other than come to reduser and bitch about it? No. So quit it, and go make some money to pay it off even faster. RED is selling these things to be used. Their value comes from the work that the camera does, not its resale value after a certain number of months. They didn't create a piece of gear to invest in and get a monetized return. Your ROI is on the screen when you work with the video it shot.

Besides, the new prices can't be doing much to the marketplace yet, as it seems there is little inventory to be shipped!
Click to expand...

Thanks - I am familiar with remedial economics and basic concepts of monetised return on investment.

This week alone I lost four grand on a sale of a Red MX. Overnight. I was already offering them a good deal based on standard market depreciation and by the next morning my twenty five grand investment was now not being sold for nine grand including all accessories but for substantially less. If it's all the same to you, I'll voice my opinion.
 
Is everyone that is buying a RED camera shooting a feature film? If so... shouldn't we have tens of thousands of films? Shouldn't we all be millionaires?
 
Andrae Palmer said:
Is everyone that is buying a RED camera shooting a feature film? If so... shouldn't we have tens of thousands of films? Shouldn't we all be millionaires?
Click to expand...

Andre, that's a non sequiter
 
If RED (Jim Jannard) is looking to empower a burgeoning class of filmmakers that are financially challenged... why does he charge them $500 (previously $750) to transfer ownership of a RED camera? Bless the pauper filmmakers by making this free. It wouldn't exactly be charitable... it would just be what should be.
 
Samir Patel said:
I don't think the $500 is mandatory. And I believe it also would include a 90 day warranty between the new buyer and RED. Sounds fair to me considering I would never know how hard the original owner ran the camera and in which conditions.
Click to expand...

Well if you don't pay that fee and you don't currently own a RED camera... you can't download new firmware. So you are pretty much forced to pay the fee. The ownership transfer fee is 5x higher than the inspection fee.

This is all confusing actually. Is it $750... or $500 + $100?
 
I would think if you knew the original owner and if they were comfortable downloading that for you every 2-3 months it wouldn't sound like a big problem. I don't know but some of this talk just sounds like everyone is entitled to free product updates and firmware updates for life. When you originally purchased the product your contract was with RED and they would be honoring their promise or whatever with you but if you resell to someone why would they be required to hold that promise with a new buyer? I mean if they really wanted to they could probably charge for firmware updates (not that I would want them to.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top