Is anyone scared that RED might "over saturate" the market?

[Ben Pluimer]

There is little doubt that everyone will have a Scarlet. My Assistant, his cousin, my gaffer, The producer, his sister, wife and girlfriend.

"oh we can use my scarlet for the job! don't need it. We are going to use the gaffer's sister's camera on this shoot, but do you have revolts and a side handle..."

just saying..

So much truth here. It's happened with every camera I've bought.

 

[Michael Dalton]

I'm surprised that now one has brought this point up, but it's probably because there are more camera related people then producers here. The real question will be with so many scarlets out there, will it oversaturate the number of quality well shot low budget films competing in the marketplace. My guess is it will. For people looking at low budget horror flicks or zombie movies, I'd be scared. The flood gates will open. RED has allowed low budget (sub 100k) films to grow spawning a the demise of realistic distribution. You likely to sell all rights to your finished film for around 75k unless you can really stand out. Even sub 500K films will have trouble. Five years ago, you might have been able to make more. The flip side is, if you can break through and create a something truly great, then there is no limitations now.

So what does this mean? A lot of films will get made, some pretty good one. It will saturate the market considerably killing the chance for mediocre films from making money, or possibly recoup costs. Is that bad? NO, because if your work outside these genres, or exceptional at what you do, it opens up doors. If you are blessed with the gift for comedy, drama, period or action films, you may be able to use the better looking film to your advantage.

Anyone who works in documentaries can show you this to be true. The flood of DV to cheap HD cams now to the 5d have flooded the market (combined with growing number of specialty networks) have cause the price per hour of documentaries to drop. What discovery and Nat Geo used to pay is not what they pay today. It's a fraction. Again is this bad? No, not if you can find a niche market. You can actually do better and make more money then producing lager budgeted shows.

I'm a huge fan of the Roger Corman, and think its a great place to start. You just need an idea that sets you a part. What you shoot it on is up to you.

 

[PC Greene]

This question comes up everytime technology advances & barriers to entry drop. It's happened in audio graphic design countless times in photography / video & many other disciplines & the answer is always the same...
Yes - more people will enter the field, because they can - but that doesn't make their work great. It means more "noise" & less "signal" but cream does tend to rise to the top & real skills, knowledge & bar work make a difference. That said, expect a gradual reduction in the quantity of customers willing and able to pay as high a premium for 4k work as time progresses.

 

[Steven Veldkamp]

To answer the OP,

If people judge your work on a certain look, then i think you're doing something wrong.

 

[Cenydd Ros]

The camera is just one small part of the movie budget. Sets cost money - costumes cost money - location rentals cost money - insurance costs money. Maybe you get your actors for free The biggest element, if you are doing a micro-budget film, is do you have a story worth telling? Sure, you can go the blood and guts route and make another B monster flick - but that's just what it is, more junk. But if you have a really good story - a rich human drama for instance, you can save on sets and effects and all the gimmicks - all you need is the dialogue and great actors. Not "celebrities" but actors. There are many yet "undiscovered" great actors. Movies like Winter's Bone and The Wrestler, for instance, even as inexpensively as they were made, could have been made with even less money because the material needs were at a minimum - but the stories were rich and yielded good film. My point is, I don't think the Scarlet is going to change much of anything in the way of "more good films" or "more bad films." Movies cost money, if you have no money then you need a great human story that keeps production costs down - and such stories are very rare to come by. I look at Pi by Aronofsky, shot on grainy 16mm, and am in awe. What a film. Pi is one of my favorite films of all time, and I mean this compared to any other film at any budget. I wouldn't want to watch that film any other way - the grainy low-end look makes the movie beautiful. Darren had the story, he had the actors, and that was all he needed. Very few producers/directors are going to get this lucky - or have the talent level needed to realize the project. Bottom line - there are a great many people aspiring to be filmmakers (yours truly included) but there are damn few people with the chops, of say John Cassavetes, in this world.