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

[Nick Morrison]

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

Thanks. I'm having a hard time sleeping, so writing on RU gives me something to focus on. Haha. Appreciate it though, seriously. You're one of my faves of RU so means a lot.

 

[Matthew Scott]

Shit, thanks man! Lotta reduser love here tonight!

 

[Shane Kelly]

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.

.

very nicely said.
and very relevant here in reduser.

 

[Clayton Burkhart]

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.

Very well stated.

 

[Leo Burton]

You can still hustle your way into Hollywood, or New York's "Off Hollywood" scene, if you have enough talent and Moxie .

I agree. Six months ago I tested positive for Moxie, and the doctors prescribed me a three picture deal at Universal.

 

[Leo Burton]

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 .

Seriously though, I do agree with this. Lots of bad low budget films out there.

 

[Ben Scott]

The cost of the cameras is about 1% of the budget of a feature. Lights, cast, art design and location fees haven't changed much have they?

 

[Elsie N]

The cost of the cameras is about 1% of the budget of a feature. Lights, cast, art design and location fees haven't changed much have they?

correct, if you follow the big budget formula.

But in a low-budget feature, camera cost could be anywhere from 50% to as high as 80% of the budget. With greater DR such as the Dragon will provide, lighting can be done with inexpensive LEDs.

Cast and crew can be had for deferred payment in some cases, and a flexible script can improvise locations to fit the story.

And my thinking is, this happens to some degree because of camera being the dominant part of the production, equipment-wise.

 

[Jimmy Gilmore]

I'm going to add something that may be against the grain over here. A camera, no matter what camera, in the digital world is a rapidly depreciating asset. Unless you are a rental business owning a camera like this is an investment in you or your company. What is it worth to you and your business to own it. Mine is more valuable to me than what I paid for it. I honestly don't care what daily moving price is on Red User or eBay. I have a consistent cost associated with creating a quality product every time I bid a project.

Glass, lights, stands, electrical cords, sand bags, fluid heads, dollies... all that stuff will last you forever and can likely sell for a large fraction of what you bought them for. A better long term investment than camera may be a Sachtler or an Arri prime set. Camera, that's an investment in you and your ability to as Nick said do really GOOD work.

 

[dio Zafi]

i agree with Jimmy…rentals now are at an all time low…the digital marketplace can change in a month

 

[Elsie N]

i agree with Jimmy…rentals now are at an all time low…the digital marketplace can change in a month

I know nothing about rentals but I am curious if the one or two camera rental operation is a new phenomena that sprang up about the time RED cameras were invented or were there a lot of people doing that renting 720 P cameras?

If this is a relatively new business model then I think people should have expected there would be a rental bubble before the crash, just like the dot com bubble and the housing bubble.

And those who complain that cheaper cameras are destroying their business don't seem to see the irony that their offering cheaper packaged rentals than the rental houses cut into the rental houses' business.

Like I said... I know nothing about rentals.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

(snip) With greater DR such as the Dragon will provide, lighting can be done with inexpensive LEDs. (snip)

While I am happy to see lower power consumption lighting technologies, some of the LED lighting out there looks awful on human skin. Yes, you can gel, but that's not a panacea. Yes, you can correct in grading, but that can turn into a mess pretty quick depending on what's in the frame.

Over the last few years I've become ever more convinced that the value of high CRI (color rendering index) fixtures, with good white point tracking when dimmed, cannot be underestimated. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

 

[Mike Garrick]

@ Sashbugu..... yep thats pretty much the truth of how the production business operates IMO.

So how did a thread about downward price pressures on Red ones turn into a treatise on the Biz ? ..... just another day on Reduser ; )

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

correct, if you follow the big budget formula.

But in a low-budget feature, camera cost could be anywhere from 50% to as high as 80% of the budget. With greater DR such as the Dragon will provide, lighting can be done with inexpensive LEDs.

Cast and crew can be had for deferred payment in some cases, and a flexible script can improvise locations to fit the story.

And my thinking is, this happens to some degree because of camera being the dominant part of the production, equipment-wise.

From experience attending hundreds of indy screenings the film you just described will be almost unwatchable and has no market whatsoever. There is a minimum you need to give an audience to expect them to show up. This is below that minimum.

 

[Robert Ruffo New]

While I am happy to see lower power consumption lighting technologies, some of the LED lighting out there looks awful on human skin. Yes, you can gel, but that's not a panacea. Yes, you can correct in grading, but that can turn into a mess pretty quick depending on what's in the frame.

Over the last few years I've become ever more convinced that the value of high CRI (color rendering index) fixtures, with good white point tracking when dimmed, cannot be underestimated. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

TRUE THAT!!!!

 

[Ben Scott]

correct, if you follow the big budget formula.

But in a low-budget feature, camera cost could be anywhere from 50% to as high as 80% of the budget. With greater DR such as the Dragon will provide, lighting can be done with inexpensive LEDs.

Cast and crew can be had for deferred payment in some cases, and a flexible script can improvise locations to fit the story.

And my thinking is, this happens to some degree because of camera being the dominant part of the production, equipment-wise.

What are you referring to as low budget? 1m? 100k? 50k? The camera wouldn't be the main budgetary factor until you got right down to the arena of the no-budget film and from what you wrote it sounds more like a typical student film setup with inexpensive LEDs, actors that are prepared to work on a deferred payment basis (ie non-professional actors) etc...

And to be honest if you're making a student film maybe you should worry less about using a Red Dragon and more about the narrative

 

[Ben Scott]

From experience attending hundreds of indy screenings the film you just described will be almost unwatchable and has no market whatsoever. There is a minimum you need to give an audience to expect them to show up. This is below that minimum.

Or this is a far more succinct way of putting it

 

[Robert Hart]

QUOTE: Originally Posted by Robert Ruffo New From experience attending hundreds of indy screenings the film you just described will be almost unwatchable and has no market whatsoever. END OF QUOTE. There is a minimum you need to give an audience to expect them to show up. This is below that minimum. -------- "Whoa. What a blow. - I'll just shamble off down to the trades shop at the other end of the college wearing my best desolated whipped-beagle countenance and offer up my carotid in sacrifice to the bandsaw God on the strength of that one". Just kidding on the manic depression. -- I have seen the sort of film you are talking about which yields "kind patronising looks" or "the cringe" but equally I have seen work done with bedrock resources come up really well. In the latter circumstance, a 4K cam of RED persuasion used with skill and care could make a critical difference.

 

[Elsie N]

What are you referring to as low budget? 1m? 100k? 50k? The camera wouldn't be the main budgetary factor until you got right down to the arena of the no-budget film and from what you wrote it sounds more like a typical student film setup with inexpensive LEDs, actors that are prepared to work on a deferred payment basis (ie non-professional actors) etc...

And to be honest if you're making a student film maybe you should worry less about using a Red Dragon and more about the narrative

Heh, heh... no need to concern yourself with the narrative.

But I find it interesting you focus on the narrative and not on the equipment imbalance.

And I can see where you could identify my statement as a setup for a student film, so I guess I need to give a few more details to defend my stance.

First of all, I'm pretty sure you are envisioning a complicated story line with many sub plots and probably taking place in a city or at least a crowded location. I, on the other hand, am referring to a planned feature of my own that takes place in the wide open spaces with a few inexpensive props and a storyline that pulls together disparate characters into one central theme. The main cast will be small (2 males and 3 females) and first contacts are alright with a small per Diem and a participation in revenue.

99% of the movie will be outdoors and about 80% of that will be in the daylight. (Night time stuff will be in the light of a camp fire or led practicals hanging in sight to light a camp.) I can flood the campfire scene from a camera position on a cliff above the firelight, just enough to add a soft glow but not enough to cause shadows. If it does cause shadows, I will position my actors facing the camera position and the audience will attribute those shadows to the firelight. Or I can shoot a full moon shot and cut that into the movie to justify any shadows. The led floods come in many different color temps including 3000 to 6000 so no need to gel if you buy (~$50) the right color temp... and they only need ~50 watts of power so batteries, not generators to power them.

As for concentrating on Dragons... this is not going to be my first rodeo... er, movie. So why not go ahead and get the upgrade now and take advantage of the extra DR and color science?

As for budget, I'm thinking in the $25,000 to $50,000 budget range to pay for travel, lodging and meals plus the *per Diem for actors... and expenses for second unit travel to get footage of a Longhorn cattle herd. A few extra props as well, even though I have already accumulated most of what I'll need in regard to wardrobe and props.

*If I'm able to raise more money, that will go toward hiring recognizable actors and the per Diem will go away. In the event of the small budget, I will caution the actors that there is no guarantee of success and if the story doesn't resonate (it has what some purists may see as disturbing undercurrents) their per Diem will in fact be their pay, so the should approach the role with that in mind.

 

[Elsie N]

From experience attending hundreds of indy screenings the film you just described will be almost unwatchable and has no market whatsoever. There is a minimum you need to give an audience to expect them to show up. This is below that minimum.

Maybe you just need to broaden your experience. '-)