Guys like this are the ones that are pulling the camera market down

[Paul Ellington]

.

Don't you think he'd have to be succesful for him to sell his reds for such low prices, rather than stupid? :] When did generosity become a crime?[/QUOTE]

Instead of verbally jousting, how-about you worry about the important things in life ... Like being happy, how you are going to film your next movie, what lenses to use etc... Oh and a great story to start with. This just seems like a waste of perfectly good energy... Not to mention air (imho).

- E

 

[shashbugu]

What red cameras sell and rent for are my own damned business, Junior Member Dunkan, and I do mind it. Your friend is an idiot. WHat? He doesn't like money? Why not sell for $8K? WHy sell at crackhead prices? Such a low price would make me think the cams were stolen, would cost him money, other sellers money, your friend is simply stupid.

Rob simmer down, don't call his friend stupid. You've made valid arguments and put out strong points, so has he, don't attack a person becos he's a junior member. Seems you've only been here since April ( unless there was a name change or something). An opinion is an opinion, just don't agree, like you don't agree with 99% of what I posted. I have nothing against that. Your perspective and contribution is always appreciated, that's just how you view the world. Saying stuff like people in the third world are thieves and movie pirates speaks very low of you. I can tell you are more cultured than that. Digital Piracy is a problem everywhere. It is an issue every single one of us is concerned with. It's actually more a problem in countries with unlimited-bandwidth and high speed internet.

 

[Elsie N]

... Seems you've only been here since April ( unless there was a name change or something). ...

Rob has been here before his current account. I suspect the reason he had to renew his account is due to someone hacking his old one. I've had email contact with Rob previously and then one day I received an email that he was stranded in Europe due to theft of his wallet or something, and needed me to send him some money to get home.

(Sorry Rob, for not sending the money you needed... but it seems you made it back to Montreal anyway. Glad you made it home. '-)

 

[shashbugu]

I agree the prices are dropping because of supply and demand. But there are actually more buyers these days. The problem is making decisions. When I travel around most people I meet have heard of a Red, and know of its value, but red being a small company doesn't have many franchises and technicians everywhere like canon, Panasonic, Sony etc do, so most potential buyers dread the need to ship their equipment overseas for repairs and servicing. It's not a terrible thing and I know Red is working on this by setting up partners overseas, the Red value is still very very high? I'm not referring to the prosumer industry, more to the professional filmmaking industry. Just for clarity.

Used Reds will always be in demand, but when a product is EOL, it gets tricky and prices fall to rock bottom because there a no aftermarket parts

 

[shashbugu]

Rob has been here before his current account. I suspect the reason he had to renew his account is due to someone hacking his old one. I've had email contact with Rob previously and then one day I received an email that he was stranded in Europe due to theft of his wallet or something, and needed me to send him some money to get home.

(Sorry Rob, for not sending the money you needed... but it seems you made it back to Montreal anyway. Glad you made it home. '-)

Lol, I know he's been here way longer, I was trying to push his buttons. The Montreal Mafia has been affecting his thread postings lately, hence the language. But Rob, you know we love you "aye". Lol

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

Storm in a teacup here.
Completely ridiculous that one member here should be telling another what he should sell his camera for.
Get over it.

 

[Barry Sanders]

I took a look at the thread mentioned earlier here about someone selling their Red Ones at knock down prices.
Regardless of what people may think here, I think it was absolutely out of line for another member to come into this individual marketplace ad/thread and chastise him for not selling it at a high enough price. As if he somehow had a responsibility to the whole community to sell higher than he wanted to. As the owner of the camera, the only responsibility he has is to himself with regards to his material property. Further, if one is not interested in buying it is extremely bad etiquette to come into someone's classified just to knock him or challenge pricing. DVXuser now has a policy surrounding this for instance. If you are not a potential buyer and don't have any specific questions about the item, hand's off! People may say that the seller responded poorly, but in the beginning he did not and for me he was clearly provoked. If I were mod here, I would definitely have cleaned up that thread, warned those individuals who made comments extraneous to the sale and restated a policy of respect in the situation.

This should be a policy here. If you're complaining about "degrading the camera market" or "you're not selling it high enough, it's a scam," you should be warned. If it continues, you should be banned.

 

[Louis Maddalena]

It's an amazing big world out there. The global business marketplace is expanding rapidly faster than most people on here can imagine. Do your research well before you all make flat out claims.
1. Just check out the Red for rent threads and see how many markets and countries the Reds are available for rent. The movie industries of almost every single country on the planet has been boosted by the advent of Reds, F3, and 5D. But most especially Red. Distributors around the world don't know an epic from a Red one. They are all Reds to them period. The can all tell the resolution difference between an Epic and a 5D. The Chinese and Indian exhibitors are build cinema multiplexes in almost every country, so shot on Red has very high value.
2. Today, Advertising agencies around the World care more about the director, Dop, vex team more than the exact camera used Red Arri, etc. you can't bill based on your gear anymore. This is very different from say 2012, barely year ago. 95% percent of the worlds television system are SD, not even HD. The world is mostly moving to digital terrestrial SD systems which gives them super crisp clear pictures even on a UHD screen. Truth
3. Mobile internet penetration is taking over the developing world. most movie, docs, tv shows etc are watched on mobile screens.
4. The price of a Red One MX is only dropping because of the cost to service and repair it. If after market products, electronics experts and technicians, existed around the world to service and repair Red products, the value will still be extremely high. Real talk
5. For the rental houses, as soon as the dragon becomes widely available you can kiss epic rentals good by. The epics will start selling at the price of a used C300. I won't rent an upgraded epic, but a brand new one, only because the rental price is the same and they will both be available.
6. Even the prices of lenses are dropping faster than anyone could ever anticipate. Manufacturers of lenses can't keep up with the demand. Plus the quality of once mediocre lens manufacturers are vastly improving. It's hard to tell the

I only care to comment on the first 5 points of this response:

1) It is true, there are so many cameras for rent in so many different markets and at so many different price points. Its a great time to be in the industry, you can always pick up a camera if you need one with any budget you may have, anywhere in the world.
2) I think its always been this way. Ad agencies don't really care what gear is being used, they only care about the end product and they hire a company that can get them the top quality ad for their ideas. If that company wants to shoot Red or Alexa or 5D they don't really care as long as the quality is there and its in budget.
3) This is true, however, I hope that it does not remain true for a long time.
4) I don't think its just repair costs I think its general support. Production companies no longer care to hire owner ops of RED ONE cameras as there are now so many Epics out there that are easier to work with on set, higher resolution, higher frame rates, lower compression ratios, etc plus adding in that they're expensive to repair, there are very few new accessories made for them, and a lot of them went out as BT units, the value of them will never be where they were.
5) I don't agree here. The the Epic upgraded and the Epic that was bought new with a Dragon are goign to be identical and you'll never be able to tell the difference between them. Just like with the Red One M upgraded to MX and the Red One MX

 

[Steve Sherrick]

I only care to comment on the first 5 points of this response:

1) It is true, there are so many cameras for rent in so many different markets and at so many different price points. Its a great time to be in the industry, you can always pick up a camera if you need one with any budget you may have, anywhere in the world.

Agreed

2) I think its always been this way. Ad agencies don't really care what gear is being used, they only care about the end product and they hire a company that can get them the top quality ad for their ideas. If that company wants to shoot Red or Alexa or 5D they don't really care as long as the quality is there and its in budget.

I don't completely agree with this. Having worked on a lot of ad agency projects, I have seen them cast their opinion about cameras more than once. In one case, there was a mantra from the top down - no Red cameras. Even when it was the appropriate camera to use for a particular spot. Now, you are right that sometimes the ad agency just wants good work and relies on the people they hire (production companies) to make those decisions or at least make the recommendations. It's just that there are those times when people within the agency know just enough to be dangerous or perhaps have a production background and keep up with technology and therefore want to have input into those decisions.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Agreed

I don't completely agree with this. Having worked on a lot of ad agency projects, I have seen them cast their opinion about cameras more than once. In one case, there was a mantra from the top down - no Red cameras. Even when it was the appropriate camera to use for a particular spot. Now, you are right that sometimes the ad agency just wants good work and relies on the people they hire (production companies) to make those decisions or at least make the recommendations. It's just that there are those times when people within the agency know just enough to be dangerous or perhaps have a production background and keep up with technology and therefore want to have input into those decisions.

Agreed, I work in promo, and my clients are pretty savvy about cameras and have strong opinions. Our shoots are almost always ALEXA or EPIC. Nothing inbetween. No BMCC (promo almost always needs slo-mo, so this is out). The Sony's havent penetrated at all for some reason (RED has way more cachet). And the 5D is only used as a "floating BTS" cam or for very low budget web stuff.

Though my clients give me a lot of latitude in picking gear, they still expect to see a premium camera on set...and know enough to recognize them.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Rob, I don't always agree with you, but this may be one of my favorite posts since I came back from vacation 2 months ago. You had me at 99%. I laughed so hard I actually needed a "moment".

HMM. Hopefully not just laughing at me…. But with me. The fact is in 1985 Scorsese said that the advent of home video cameras would mean that now (then) "anybody could be a film studio". It simply never happened.

Indies aim for a market (mostly of intellectuals, and a small segment of hard core genre fans) and mainstream Hollywood occupies the viewing time of just about everybody else. That's been true for many decades and is true now.

Netflix may seem different, but basically it's a studio in terms of production of their series - you go in with your agent, pitch, make deals with stars… Not different at all from how you would pitch a film studio in 1968- and basically the same as HBO has been for decades. Maybe docos have more of a chance now of getting seen on Netfilx, much more than they did on PBS which had very small audience share - OK - and sure, some 1 minute cute cat videos come from aunt Mary in Kansas and sometimes get 40 000 000 hits - but nobody is watching a full length film created by aunt Mary in Kansas because for the most part, indy films done by semi-amateurs with their buddies are unwatchable. In no way does any of this mean the world of Hollywood has come to an end. Its' nothing new. Way before there was video online Blockbuster had single copies of indy fare to fill out the racks, and those films rarely rented. You could argue now it's even harder of nobody knows who you are, because there often is no rack - people have to search for you to find you in many cases.

Fact is, making a story that resonates with millions of people is still very hard and takes loads of cash for actors, sets, script refinement, marketing…. even if cameras were free, that's still a lot of money, time and talent that most people do not have. You can post your $60 "masterpiece" on Vimeo, but good luck getting anyone to watch it beyond your immediate circle of friends and family, and most likely you will get some key aspect wrong that will have the average viewer who neither knows nor cares about you, flipping whatever device they are using to another real or virtual channel showing carefully crafted mainstream Hollywood fare.

Better low-cost cameras do mean that the visual difference between a no-budget "masterpiece" and Hollywood films will be lesser - but even just visually, you'll still have less ideal locations, often poor styling, not to mention horrible or absent lighting. You and your film school artiste chums may think that naturalistic doco lighting and no makeup are cool, but the vast majority of audiences disagree (studies prove this - which is why Hollywood did not try to replace all cinematographers with interns) and for some genres (like romantic comedy, comedy, etc.) almost 100% of audiences disagree. And that's just visually. The chances that you'll have a perfect script that does not looses audience interest in many places are slim to none. That takes exceptional talent, and outside advice, which is expensive and hard to find.

It sounds like I am being negative. I'm not. You can still hustle your way into Hollywood, or New York's "Off Hollywood" scene, if you have enough talent and Moxie (again, same as it was in 1932) but no camera no matter what ISO it shoots at will make it possible for you to be successful with your film doing it all by yourself in your garage.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

.

Don't you think he'd have to be succesful for him to sell his reds for such low prices, rather than stupid? :] When did generosity become a crime?[/QUOTE]

its' not generosity fi it hurts other redusers here and makes it harder for them to move on with their business, upgrade to Dragon, pay the bills, etc. Its' not generosity of it hurts more people than it helps.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

First. Rob didn't "open" or start this post.
Second. Rob bought two RED ONE MX's, and they both paid for themselves pretty quickly. Only his Epic hasn't paid for itself. He's been pretty open about that.
Third. Rob spends a lot on gear, and is entitled to his opinion.

My advice is you should get to know the person before you insult them.

Rob may have strong opinions, but they are grounded in fact and are well reasoned. There is merit to that. Baseless insults not so much.

Food for thought.

Thank you.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Don't you think he'd have to be succesful for him to sell his reds for such low prices, rather than stupid? :] When did generosity become a crime?

Instead of verbally jousting, how-about you worry about the important things in life ... Like being happy, how you are going to film your next movie, what lenses to use etc... Oh and a great story to start with. This just seems like a waste of perfectly good energy... Not to mention air (imho).

- E[/QUOTE]

Fine, I do all those things too, but arguing is a hobby. Blame it on my Jewish heritage

 

[Paul Ellington]

Instead of verbally jousting, how-about you worry about the important things in life ... Like being happy, how you are going to film your next movie, what lenses to use etc... Oh and a great story to start with. This just seems like a waste of perfectly good energy... Not to mention air (imho).

- E

Fine, I do all those things too, but arguing is a hobby. Blame it on my Jewish heritage [/QUOTE]

Fair enough ... Just trying to keep things friendly ... Things get lost whilst typing when it could be funny over beer. :0)

- E

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

Fine, I do all those things too, but arguing is a hobby. Blame it on my Jewish heritage

Fair enough ... Just trying to keep things friendly ... Things get lost whilst typing when it could be funny over beer. :0)

- E[/QUOTE]

True that. Too bad there are so few Montreal Redusers. i would gladly get together for a beer with them (OK, maybe a good wine or creative martini, not much of a beer guy but probably you guessed that from my posts )

 

[Jean Maurizio]

You can maybe just get robbed out of $3000 and get no camera at all, for sure.

LOL You have right, that's seem the most probable thing.

About Italians making business in rental in Canada, i didn't know it.

Cheers

 

[shashbugu]

HMM. Hopefully not just laughing at me…. But with me. The fact is in 1985 Scorsese said that the advent of home video cameras would mean that now (then) "anybody could be a film studio". It simply never happened.

Indies aim for a market (mostly of intellectuals, and a small segment of hard core genre fans) and mainstream Hollywood occupies the viewing time of just about everybody else. That's been true for many decades and is true now.

Netflix may seem different, but basically it's a studio in terms of production of their series - you go in with your agent, pitch, make deals with stars… Not different at all from how you would pitch a film studio in 1968- and basically the same as HBO has been for decades. Maybe docos have more of a chance now of getting seen on Netfilx, much more than they did on PBS which had very small audience share - OK - and sure, some 1 minute cute cat videos come from aunt Mary in Kansas and sometimes get 40 000 000 hits - but nobody is watching a full length film created by aunt Mary in Kansas because for the most part, indy films done by semi-amateurs with their buddies are unwatchable. In no way does any of this mean the world of Hollywood has come to an end. Its' nothing new. Way before there was video online Blockbuster had single copies of indy fare to fill out the racks, and those films rarely rented. You could argue now it's even harder of nobody knows who you are, because there often is no rack - people have to search for you to find you in many cases.

Fact is, making a story that resonates with millions of people is still very hard and takes loads of cash for actors, sets, script refinement, marketing…. even if cameras were free, that's still a lot of money, time and talent that most people do not have. You can post your $60 "masterpiece" on Vimeo, but good luck getting anyone to watch it beyond your immediate circle of friends and family, and most likely you will get some key aspect wrong that will have the average viewer who neither knows nor cares about you, flipping whatever device they are using to another real or virtual channel showing carefully crafted mainstream Hollywood fare.

Better low-cost cameras do mean that the visual difference between a no-budget "masterpiece" and Hollywood films will be lesser - but even just visually, you'll still have less ideal locations, often poor styling, not to mention horrible or absent lighting. You and your film school artiste chums may think that naturalistic doco lighting and no makeup are cool, but the vast majority of audiences disagree (studies prove this - which is why Hollywood did not try to replace all cinematographers with interns) and for some genres (like romantic comedy, comedy, etc.) almost 100% of audiences disagree. And that's just visually. The chances that you'll have a perfect script that does not looses audience interest in many places are slim to none. That takes exceptional talent, and outside advice, which is expensive and hard to find.

It sounds like I am being negative. I'm not. You can still hustle your way into Hollywood, or New York's "Off Hollywood" scene, if you have enough talent and Moxie (again, same as it was in 1932) but no camera no matter what ISO it shoots at will make it possible for you to be successful with your film doing it all by yourself in your garage.

Lol, not to be insulting, I honestly feel sorry for you bro, if you keep thinking like this. It doesn't sound like you are being negative.... you are negative.... Film hustle 101, As much as it is financially rewarding and exciting to be successfully selling other peoples products... I'll shut up here.

Unfortunately everything you have written up there is simply a depressing excuse. "You can make excuses or films you can't do both". A film is a film. Everybody looses money or makes money based on opportunity investment costs and economies of scale. You for one live in a country that has been exceptionally kind to filmmakers. We Americans are envious. For what it's worth there are more ex studio execs now in the low to mid film production industry who feel more fulfilled than working for company that deal in deals, research stats, numbers, demographics, Boxoffice revenue, ratings etc. They might as well have been working in banks. In my home state of Los Angeles film production is mostly controlled by lawyers and accountants who are patiently waiting to prey on you after you've created your no make up, bad lighting artistic, master piece.

No two movies will ever be produced the same way. There is no status quo in filmmaking. Your view of Hollywood is a figment of your imagination. Movies are financed in more than 50,000 ways. From drug dealing, to barter trade, to sexual favors.

So yes, all large studios and Advertisers will continue to invest heavily, hire the best of the best talent in the world to make and market tent pole movies and international brands to satisfy millions of eyeballs, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, its an integrated part of our contemporary social lifestyles (again economies of scale). That has absolutely got nothing to do with going out and making a movie with what ever equipment and talent you have. You don't have to be the best or most talented individual, or have the best equipment or crew, you have to have a passion, a vision and relentless motivation to make it by any means necessary. Hollywood studios fall just as flat on their faces just as indies do.

In no way or shape am i indicating that 80 percent of wannabes will make it to the box-office or get wide release or even if they do will make any money.
Film production is an emotional experience both behind the scenes and what shows up on screen.

 

[Nick Morrison]

HMM. Hopefully not just laughing at me…. But with me. The fact is in 1985 Scorsese said that the advent of home video cameras would mean that now (then) "anybody could be a film studio". It simply never happened.

Indies aim for a market (mostly of intellectuals, and a small segment of hard core genre fans) and mainstream Hollywood occupies the viewing time of just about everybody else. That's been true for many decades and is true now.

Netflix may seem different, but basically it's a studio in terms of production of their series - you go in with your agent, pitch, make deals with stars… Not different at all from how you would pitch a film studio in 1968- and basically the same as HBO has been for decades. Maybe docos have more of a chance now of getting seen on Netfilx, much more than they did on PBS which had very small audience share - OK - and sure, some 1 minute cute cat videos come from aunt Mary in Kansas and sometimes get 40 000 000 hits - but nobody is watching a full length film created by aunt Mary in Kansas because for the most part, indy films done by semi-amateurs with their buddies are unwatchable. In no way does any of this mean the world of Hollywood has come to an end. Its' nothing new. Way before there was video online Blockbuster had single copies of indy fare to fill out the racks, and those films rarely rented. You could argue now it's even harder of nobody knows who you are, because there often is no rack - people have to search for you to find you in many cases.

Fact is, making a story that resonates with millions of people is still very hard and takes loads of cash for actors, sets, script refinement, marketing…. even if cameras were free, that's still a lot of money, time and talent that most people do not have. You can post your $60 "masterpiece" on Vimeo, but good luck getting anyone to watch it beyond your immediate circle of friends and family, and most likely you will get some key aspect wrong that will have the average viewer who neither knows nor cares about you, flipping whatever device they are using to another real or virtual channel showing carefully crafted mainstream Hollywood fare.

Better low-cost cameras do mean that the visual difference between a no-budget "masterpiece" and Hollywood films will be lesser - but even just visually, you'll still have less ideal locations, often poor styling, not to mention horrible or absent lighting. You and your film school artiste chums may think that naturalistic doco lighting and no makeup are cool, but the vast majority of audiences disagree (studies prove this - which is why Hollywood did not try to replace all cinematographers with interns) and for some genres (like romantic comedy, comedy, etc.) almost 100% of audiences disagree. And that's just visually. The chances that you'll have a perfect script that does not looses audience interest in many places are slim to none. That takes exceptional talent, and outside advice, which is expensive and hard to find.

It sounds like I am being negative. I'm not. You can still hustle your way into Hollywood, or New York's "Off Hollywood" scene, if you have enough talent and Moxie (again, same as it was in 1932) but no camera no matter what ISO it shoots at will make it possible for you to be successful with your film doing it all by yourself in your garage.

I was def laughing WITH YOU.

And I agree with you, 100% (not even 99%).

I work in promo, which can be a very hands on, technical field. We don't have the budgets or the luxury to be otherwise. And from my perch I can tell you a vast majority of the people I work with aren't technical enough to make a feature. It's too difficult. As you say, it requires a lot of experience and cooperation from a group of accomplished craftsman. 99% of the people I know don't have it in them. I'm not even sure if I have it in me, and it's certainly on my "list" of things todo in my life.

And, there's a reason people like Spielberg, Lucas and Soderbergh are decrying the end of indie filmmaking. Because in a way, it's more difficult than ever now to get noticed. 15 years ago at Sundance there was a much smaller crop of indie movies to choose from. They were shot on film, often by film school graduates, with a nuanced idea of how to make a movie.

But technology has changed all that. Anyone with a 5D and no education can go out and make a movie. And they have. There are more indie movies than ever. And as a result, it's become more challenging than ever to get noticed. There is more "noise" than ever. More websites, more platforms. But, it's also just harder to break through. Before, we lived in a more elite driven curated world. The festivals and the film critics anointed the "new filmmakers" and in a funny way that is still happening, except they just have to weed through more crap than ever before.

Now...what technology has created is more filmmakers. More people working in film. Compared to 15 years ago, there are now 100's of cable channels, and 100's of websites that all need content, promotions, anything. So as a result, there are more directors, DP's and filmmakers than ever before. It's also just easier to make stuff look good than ever before. So that democratization I like. You don't have to use a $250,000 film camera and Zeiss PL glass to make an interview look good, your DSLR can do a pretty fine job.

But being good. Like really good, like so good you can make a national commercial, or shoot a feature? That's still as tough as it ever was. There is more opportunity now than before. As I said, a 100 channels need promos, and every brand can use a "web piece". But being good is still hard, and (sadly) most people will find it a challenge to be that good, no matter what camera you give them (like kids dreaming of being in the Majors, not all of us are destined to make it to "the game").

You can go and shoot on 10 Dragons all with Leicas and Vantage Ones, and your work may still stagger to the finish line, because technology alone can't save you. And because this biz is hard. Because being good, is really, really hard.

And being good isn't even really about talent. I know a lot of people who waste their talent. In a funny way, considering how instantly gratifying our culture is, being good is mostly about patience and experience. Even someone w/out a lot of natural talent can still learn a ton through experience and become "good". In fact having talent can often be a curse as it deludes you into thinking you don't need to learn more. Um, you do. A LOT.

So for me personally...I don't care what camera anyone owns, or what it's worth. I like RED because they give me options, and they love challenging with the status quo. I think there is value to that. The industry is changing so fast, I'd rather be with the team that's pushing the barriers over, and because there's always something thrilling about being in the vanguard. Granted, the odds of taking a hit are higher when you are on the front lines, but so are the odds of doing something meaningful. No guts, no glory, and what's why more or less I'm committed to RED. No matter how much their cameras are selling for.

So yeah, I pretty much completely agree with you 100%. Not even 99%.

 

[Matthew Scott]

So yeah, I pretty much completely agree with you 100%. Not even 99%.

As am I, with you. That was one awesomely written piece.....seriously.