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

Samir Patel said:
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.)
Click to expand...

But doesn't RED want this technology to be in the hands of all filmmakers? So why tax them exorbitantly? All they want is a ownership transfer... no warranty... no inspection. Surely this could be done at a fairer price, keeping in mind the economic condition of most young filmmakers and the bad economy overall.

Why does the ownership transfer cost 5x the inspection fee? Is this the Emperors New clothes? I see a naked man.
 
Andrae Palmer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Come on. The transfer fee for Avid Media Composer is also $500, and MC is considerably cheaper than a Red.

Charging a fee keeps cameras from being traded around like baseball cards. And it pays for keeping a real, readily accessible database of who owns what, which can be very useful in the event of camera theft. You think if I called Sony or Canon they could tell me what products I own? I wouldn't even know where to start or who to call. The instant access that Red gives its customers cost money to provide.
 
As it stands I would expect everything is optional just not ability to download updates by a new owner. I personally would want some type of warranty if I ever bought something from someone on resale market. I just don't feel comfortable doing that (buying resales) on most high price items)
 
Brice Ansel said:
I don't know about the US, but here in France it is a comon thing to work for free when you want to support a good script and a director you believe in.
When all goes well the team share the cake.
Their is a life in the movie making outside of Hollywood way of thinking.
Money is one thing, but the most important at the end is the passion for your art.
Actually I would have never made my first movie more than 20 years ago without the freeish help from establish professionals.

Ps: I don't have the contacts of Mr Cassavetes but it happen to me frequently than actors friends ask me for some free work.
Because a talent prefer to work for free than waiting at home for the phone to ring.
Click to expand...

This is fine - but you sound a tad passionate to me. I shot one of the most successful feature films in this country on apparently deferred payment. We worked for five weeks, six days a week for up to sixteen hours a day. I lost other paid work because of this. Hard work with a reduced crew - which meant everybody had twice the work to do to get it done. When the film was released it became a financial success - none of the crew received anything. Zero. This was to do with models of distribution for cinema whereby distributors offer below the cost of the film to screen it because it doesn't contain any stars etc. I wasn't annoyed about this because this is how things are.

I am glad to have worked on the film and am proud of the work that we did and was glad to support the director. He has gone on to other films. I am delighted for his success.

Since starting as a cameraman, I have shot in excess of 200 shorts for free - four free projects this year (one cost me a four day commercial in the crucially quiet summer months since the economy hit hard). I didn't tell the director that his short film had landed on the dates of a commercial. I have payments to make to the bank for equipment and a mortgage plus I have to eat so could have done with that job. Shooting for the love of it is admirable but when you owe the bank a ton of cash for all the equipment that free shoots take for granted then it takes on a different quality. I appreciate your situation is different - you obviously have fewer financial concerns - but not everybody is in your situation.
 
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...

We do have tens of thousands of films. Every year Sundance gets 2,000 features submitted for World Cinema competition and 2,000 for US competiton.
And it is quite a process to sort and screen all of those. Out of those 4,000 about 25 films get accepted into competition. And another 75 films are shown
out of competition in "midnight movie" and "new voices" type of screenings. So out of those 100 accepted maybe 1 or 2 distribute to a theatre screen.

A producer did tell me one time he thought if a movie was just decent and had a beginning a middlle and an end that it was worth 1 million dollars aftery
you sold it around the world. But that was another era. Another world really. Film & TV were the only cheap entertainment at that time.
Now you have internet...giant home 3D plasmas..facebook...lifelike videogames..500 cable channels. So the easy money is gone and it's been gone awhile now.
Better to give goldmining or farming a try to get rich nowadays.
 
James T Mather said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is really true James.

You know what?
I don't know one Dp who own his hown camera. ;-)


The thing is,
I don't really understand how people who are suppose to be in the rental business can take such a big loss for one camera purchase?
If so, maybe it wasn't a good business choice then.
Usually when we go for rental, we use establish company, they have every thing you want.
And more inportant, they have more than one brand of camera choice.
It is just their job to invest and follow the camera fasion.
Considering the amount of noise on this board recently,
I'm starting wondering if Red Digital Cinema hasn't created more small aprentice renting shops, than young aprentice aspirant filmakers?
 
James - sounds like you need a better lawyer drawing up your participation agreements. :huh: Or the services of a forensic accountant.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
James - sounds like you need a better lawyer drawing up your participation agreements. :huh: Or the services of a forensic accountant.
Click to expand...

Ha ha. This was a few years ago - I was just commenting on the happy-do-do-this-forever-for-the-love-of-the-art - when you've been through that process a number of times, you get a little inured to it. I do okay so can do the occasional freebie.
 
James T Mather said:
This is fine - but you sound a tad naive to me. I shot one of the most successful feature films in this country on apparently deferred payment. We worked for five weeks, six days a week for up to sixteen hours a day. I lost other paid work because of this. Hard work with a reduced crew - which meant everybody had twice the work to do to get it done. When the film was released it became a financial success - none of the crew received anything. Zero. This was to do with models of distribution for cinema whereby distributors offer below the cost of the film to screen it because it doesn't contain any stars etc. I wasn't annoyed about this because this is how things are.

I am glad to have worked on the film and am proud of the work that we did and was glad to support the director. He has gone on to other films. I am delighted for his success.

Since starting as a cameraman, I have shot in excess of 200 shorts for free - four free projects this year (one cost me a four day commercial in the crucially quiet summer months since the economy hit hard). I didn't tell the director that his short film had landed on the dates of a commercial. I have payments to make to the bank for equipment and a mortgage plus I have to eat so could have done with that job. Shooting for the love of it is admirable but when you owe the bank a ton of cash for all the equipment that free shoots take for granted then it takes on a different quality. I appreciate your situation is different - you obviously have fewer financial concerns - but not everybody is in your situation.
Click to expand...

Sorry for your situation James.
That's really generous of you, and I'm glad to read that love for the art of movie making is universal.
One last thing, I'm not naîve.
B.
 
Brice Ansel said:
...Considering the amount of noise on this board recently,
I'm starting wondering if Red Digital Cinema hasn't created more small aprentice renting shops, than young aprentice aspirant filmakers?
Click to expand...

Yes of course.
While it is one thing to spend $50-150K on camera and lenses.

But then to take those tools and go into actual physical production well now you're
talking about additional tens...going into hundreds of thousands...or millions.
This is why some people only shoot commercials.
 
Last edited:
James T Mather said:
I know - I didn't mean to offend :) Let's replace it with passionate.
Click to expand...
Good on you!
I've learned the hard way, passion is important in that context. ;-)
 
High technology hardware investments depreciate rapidly, and sometimes abruptly. Why are people blaming RED for this?

Inflated pricing by industry oligarchs is what opened the door for RED to begin with. How stupid would RED have to be to make the same mistake?

IMO RED has made a greater effort to protect our investments than any of their competitors, they manufacture locally and Jim has bent over backwards to make obsolescence as obsolete as humanly possible. What's he supposed to do, stop the march of time?!

Cheers - #19
 
High technology hardware investments depreciate rapidly, and sometimes abruptly. Why are people blaming RED for this?

Inflated pricing by industry oligarchs is what opened the door for RED to begin with. How stupid would RED have to be to make the same mistake?

IMO RED has made a greater effort to protect our investments than any of their competitors, they manufacture locally and Jim has bent over backwards to make obsolescence as obsolete as humanly possible. What's he supposed to do, stop the march of time?!

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
RED has made a greater effort to protect our investments than any of their competitors, they manufacture locally and Jim has bent over backwards to make obsolescence as obsolete as humanly possible.
Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Maybe it is also the time to thanks the unofficial second hand Red camera broker,
who did mentain the curent price of Red camera very high for a very long time.
 
Why ENOUGH? If you don't like it, don't read it.

As usual Blair makes a good point.

A series of soft drops might have cushioned the blow a little and created a less 1929 feeling - after all the f55 is not due out until Feb. I can't argue against t from Red's point of view: What cameras were on the second hand market are now unsellable and Red will get that money on traded in Red ones so it makes sense from their point of view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top