Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register 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 :)

New pricing...

Rob Ruffo said:
Most of all I hope that none of us have a reason to say "Gee, that was foolish, I really should have invested in an Alexa instead of losing all that money." A lot of customers saying that could not be good for Red.
Click to expand...

i guess that depends on if they have a lot more (and I'm gonna bet about more than ten times more customers) saying woohoo! I just got a kick ass epic for a really good price, thank you RED I love you! All my dreams can come true now! Then with the increase in RED camera owners the orders for modules and Red Rockets start piling up enabling Red to sell those add ons for cheaper too..
You're in the minority Rob and this is a democracy.
 
I don't care if they come down 1,000 bucks or 10,000 bucks... I'm just happy that they do what I want them to do... and exist for me to profit from.

Sony's cameras don't do what I need... (yet) ... even with there new breed.
Arris cameras don't do what I need... (yet) .... and the way they are talking they may never tick all my boxes.
Canon don't do what I need... (yet) ... But I think they are RED's biggest competitor. The moment they can do high speed RAW and Canon pricing... Then that will swing my thinking.

And to upgrade any of the above means I have to buy another camera....
To upgrade RED will cost me 6K... ?

In saying all that... One day one of these companies will bring out a EPIC killer... and RED may be behind the 8 ball. Its happend to before, it will happen again.

Canon did it to nikon and vise versa.... And RED acknowledge that there is stiff competition coming in fast and they could loose customers if they fall behind.
But till that happens RED is for me for now....

Did I mention I have gone from Nikon to Canon back to nikon and then to canon again...
Ive also gone from Sony to Canon to Arri to RED...

This cycle of chasing a technical edge and price advantage is real for us all...
 
Mark Toia said:
I don't care if they come down 1,000 bucks or 10,000 bucks... I'm just happy that they do what I want them to do... and exist for me to profit from.

Sony's cameras don't do what I need... (yet) ... even with there new breed.
Arris cameras don't do what I need... (yet) .... and the way they are talking they may never tick all my boxes.
Canon don't do what I need... (yet) ... But I think they are RED's biggest competitor. The moment they can do high speed RAW and Canon pricing... Then that will swing my thinking.

And to upgrade any of the above means I have to buy another camera....
To upgrade RED will cost me 6K... ?

In saying all that... One day one of these companies will bring out a EPIC killer... and RED may be behind the 8 ball. Its happend to before, it will happen again.

Canon did it to nikon and vise versa.... And RED acknowledge that there is stiff competition coming in fast and they could loose customers if they fall behind.
But till that happens RED is for me for now....

Did I mention I have gone from Nikon to Canon back to nikon and then to canon again...
Ive also gone from Sony to Canon to Arri to RED...

This cycle of chasing a technical edge and price advantage is real for us all...
Click to expand...

+++ 1
 
In my opinion, from a business perspective, it'd be foolish to buy any camera for more than $15k if you were NOT going to be renting it out for supplemental income. $17500 for the R1 was an exception because it was 4k and RAW about 3 years before anyone else. Nowadays though, it wouldn't make sense unless you had a client base locked in that would go with your services regardless of the kit you had/recommended (in which case, it still wouldn't make sense to own a $20k+ camera because those clients would be with you even if you rented.) Even when the Epic got released, there were plenty of large sensor cameras out there which basically was the writing on the wall. $35k is a lot to pay if you are not going to be renting.

Conversely, I have no idea why the Epic cost so much more than the R1 to begin with. It was a sensor technology that was essentially 3 years old by the time it made it into the Epic. Epic shouldn't have been more than $25k (the same cost as the R1 with MX, but 3 years later. Those 3 years of development time should have been enough to make the same camera, just smaller.)

On the flip side, I think for the vast majority of people buying Scarlet's, they were buying to use on their own productions or to be value added as camera-ops/dps/etc and not necessarily to be rented out.

So, yeah, when guys like Ruffo say, "R1(mx) was the same price (oR MORE) for it's entire lifecycle... I figured Epic would be the same...How am I supposed to keep my rates the same on a now-cheaper camera?" I kind of understand where he's coming from. At the same time, I don't understand how people could have made that assumption being that the R1/R1mx was such a huge fluke in the digital imaging industry.
 
Last edited:
just a thought BUT if we are all buying into RED because they are upgradeable, meaning RED will not be able to sell you another camera because you're just gonna upgrade yours for a fraction of the new cameras price, doesn't this mean that RED's future revenues once they hit their ceiling in camera sales is going to come from the upgrade price or sale? in short how many actually EPIC owners are gonna buy a new brain with Dragon (costing anywhere from $25k - $35k or more) and how many are just gonna upgrade theirs for the $6k figure? I'm guessing at least 90% are just gonna go for the upgrade, but who knows I may be wrong. back to my point. if RED's really gonna survive with making most of their future revenues from upgrade dollars (which is what we all want because we claim we don't want to buy new cameras every two or three years) then shouldn't RED be primarily focused on selling the current cameras for as cheap as possible while still making a profit? the more cameras in people's hands the better for RED. it won't matter what the competition puts out in the future because RED will have something comparable and you will just be able to upgrade to those specs for a fraction of the cost of buying a whole new camera from a competitor.. wether you like it or not, the fact that RED has preached that you're camera will not be obsolete, means their business model will only work if they can get cameras in as many people's hands as possible, and now that the competition has ALMOST caught up (with competitive prices mind you) RED's got a big decision to make. again, this is common sense to me, but also I come from the business start up world, the only way I see RED's survival with making non-obsolete cameras is the mass distribution of that said camera and then revenue generation from the upgrades. the new ASIC needs to be powerful enough to handle the next 3 generations of chips (at least the Dragon and whatever comes next) to maximize profits on the latter. no one wants to see RED fold, or be bought out.

I also want to add, that I may be way off and wrong. maybe they have other ideas for how they will generate revenues in the future. I'm just going off the notion that if I bought an EPIC, I can just keep upgrading for under $10k every time they come up with the next great thing, which usually takes a year or two or three. If they don't have thousands of camera owners how can they sustain the business. and the time seems to be RIGHT NOW to get their cameras in everybody's hands cause like I said and like we've seen the competition finally gets it and is slowly but surely coming.

if you decide to respond I welcome your thoughts and ideas. enlighten me, but please don't tell me about how you "feel" about the price drop and how it effects your personal investment or rental price blah blah. talk to me about business and strategy.
 
Mike P. said:
In my opinion, from a business perspectieve, it'd be foolish to buy any camera for more than $15k if you were NOT going to be renting it out for supplemental income. $17500 for the R1 was an exception because it was 4k and RAW about 3 years before anyone else. Nowadays though, it wouldn't make sense unless you had a client base locked in that would go with your services regardless of the kit you had/recommended (in which case, it still wouldn't make sense to own a $20k+ camera because those clients would be with you even if you rented.) Even when the Epic got released, there were plenty of large sensor cameras out there which basically was the writing on the wall. $35k is a lot to pay if you are not going to be renting.

Conversely, I have no idea why the Epic cost so much more than the R1 to begin with. It was a sensor technology that was essentially 3 years old by the time it made it into the Epic. Epic shouldn't have been more than $25k (the same cost as the R1 with MX, but 3 years later. Those 3 years of development time should have been enough to make the same camera, just smaller.)

On the flip side, I think for the vast majority of people buying Scarlet's, they were buying to use on their own productions or to be value added as camera-ops/dps/etc and not necessarily to be rented out.

So, yeah, when guys like Ruffo say, "R1(mx) was the same price (oR MORE) for it's entire lifecycle... I figured Epic would be the same...How am I supposed to keep my rates the same on a now-cheaper camera?" I kind of understand where he's coming from. At the same time, I don't understand how people could have made that assumption being that the R1/R1mx was such a huge fluke in the digital imaging industry.
Click to expand...

You burning-stick-poking-little-troll you. I'll play though. Epic was $27.5k from memory, not that much more than R1MX, and I'm sure loads of people will agree that it made huge leaps above and beyond the R1MX, and wasn't simply the same camera yet smaller. It was now 5K (that's more than enough to make it worth a fair bit more), HEAPS smaller (which to moms people is invaluable), had a new upgradeable form factor, a touch screen (have you used a R1 menu? RED Touch is sooooooo much better), 300fps (how is this NOT worth the extra few thousand?).

There are more things, but all in all, you are way off base. The very fact that the Epic has been such a hit, proves that a load of people disagree with you. If they didn't think the extra money was worth it, they'd be buying the R1 and not the Epic, both are still available after all.
 
I also want to add that the add ons .. modules, accessories even the red rocket in a minor way.. don't count for much future revenue because once you buy those you will never really need to buy them again, since you're keeping the same camera body through out the upgrades. i'm presuming we keep the same camera body, I guess they could make a future camera that is shaped differently and force you to sell your camera's body back to them which then you will be required to buy new modules and stuff but that would kinda suck.
 
Easy there... we're talking 3 years in "technology time" with the heart of the system (sensor) remaining the same.

I'm also trying to point out why both sides of the "price reduction" issue are right AND wrong.

As for the pre-2012 price, that was definitely inline with what most thought it should be. It's also why RED kept it there until 2012 (which is a courtesy that Sony/Canon/etc would NOT have made.) That said, why the increase to $35k? Conversely, that's also why a lot of people think the price drop will be to $20k (because if it only drops to $25k - $27.5k, it isn't really a price reduction, so much as a return to what it was.)

ALSO, don't confuse my own guesstimations with the point I was making. I don't know much about camera design, so take what I say with a grain of salt. In terms of technology, however, 3 years should be enough time for a similar camera to be made half the size and/or with half the power consumption (actually, it's 18months according to Moore). That means, rough guesstimation and in terms of general technology, in 3 years, the same camera should be able to push twice as many pixels and be half the size (which is what 5k Epic essentially is.) The point I was making, however, was that investing $35k in a camera system only makes sense if you can rent it for its entire life cycle. If that camera drops to ownership-level pricing (<$20k) a year after you bought it, renting it at a rate that generates substantial income becomes extremely difficult to do, no?
 
Last edited:
Mike P. said:
Easy there... we're talking 3 years in "technology time" with the heart of the system (sensor) remaining the same.

I'm also trying to point out why both sides of the "price reduction" issue are right AND wrong.

As for the pre-2012 price, that was definitely inline with what most thought it should be. It's also why RED kept it there until 2012 (which is a courtesy that Sony/Canon/etc would NOT have made.) That said, why the increase to $35k? Conversely, that's also why a lot of people think the price drop will be to $20k (because if it only drops to $25k - $27.5k, it isn't really a price reduction, so much as a return to what it was.)

ALSO, don't confuse my own guesstimations with the point I was making. I don't know much about camera design, so take what I say with a grain of salt. In terms of technology, however, 3 years should be enough time for a similar camera to be made half the size and/or with half the power consumption (actually, it's 18months according to Moore). That means, rough guesstimation and in terms of general technology, in 3 years, the same camera should be able to push twice as many pixels and be half the size (which is what 5k Epic essentially is.) The point I was making, however, was that investing $35k in a camera system only makes sense if you can rent it for its entire life cycle. If that camera drops to ownership-level pricing (<$20k) a year after you bought it, renting it at a rate that generates substantial income becomes extremely difficult to do, no?
Click to expand...

If you look at an investment in a Scarlet the price of the accessories a quite a bit more than the price of the body. But the best part is that all the accessories are interchangeable between the Scarlet and the Epic which is great. So now if I' am to upgrade from the Scarlet to Epic it really make sense. Regarding an epic, at least in India it was mostly bought by Rental Houses, most of them would have taken their money out by now ... In India if you want to rent a camera will good PL glasses you will have to go to the big rental houses, they used to charge hell of a lot of money to rent a Epic ... They are not going to be bothered about the price drop, because the substantial investment for them is the lenses and not the camera.
 
Realistically, "obsolescence obsolete", in terms of accessories, only works if they'll be usable with the next generation of RED cameras... Otherwise, they just go obsolete. Going from Scarlet to Epic is like going from f5 to f55... No one would do it unless sony offered a full value trade in (they wouldn't... But RED might).
 
Rob Ruffo said:
I hope the price reduction will be reasonable, so that the many small businesses who invested in Epic, like ours, do not see a large revenue cut from their gear this year, which has already been unusually hard on all of us. I hope that our Epic will retain some reasonable portion of its value for rental to our own prods on budgets shown to clients, and for resale (we're not getting out of the business, but some people want that option) and rentals to others.

As a side note I also hope that high budget productions, where everyone is paid fairly and there is ample crew and ample lighting, see an increase in production numbers in 2013 - so that those of us who live in big cities and do not have a day job nor rich parents can continue to pay off our mortgages.

Most of all I hope that none of us have a reason to say "Gee, that was foolish, I really should have invested in an Alexa instead of losing all that money." A lot of customers saying that could not be good for Red.
Click to expand...


I would cut 15-18% no more no less for the epic.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
I hope the price reduction will be reasonable, so that the many small businesses who invested in Epic, like ours, do not see a large revenue cut from their gear this year, which has already been unusually hard on all of us. I hope that our Epic will retain some reasonable portion of its value for rental to our own prods on budgets shown to clients, and for resale (we're not getting out of the business, but some people want that option) and rentals to others.

As a side note I also hope that high budget productions, where everyone is paid fairly and there is ample crew and ample lighting, see an increase in production numbers in 2013 - so that those of us who live in big cities and do not have a day job nor rich parents can continue to pay off our mortgages.

Most of all I hope that none of us have a reason to say "Gee, that was foolish, I really should have invested in an Alexa instead of losing all that money." A lot of customers saying that could not be good for Red.
Click to expand...

Rob, it seems to me that all you are really interested in is making money. Here's an alternative plan. Sell your equipment, even if it is underwater, move to Texas and go to work in the oil patch. You are no doubt a hard worker and I promise you that you will be able to pay off your mortgage a lot sooner than with what you are doing now. (unless you are living in one of those 1 percenter houses) '-)
 
Elsie N said:
Rob, it seems to me that all you are really interested in is making money. Here's an alternative plan. Sell your equipment, even if it is underwater, move to Texas and go to work in the oil patch. You are no doubt a hard worker and I promise you that you will be able to pay off your mortgage a lot sooner than with what you are doing now. (unless you are living in one of those 1 percenter houses) '-)
Click to expand...

From my career, no, it's much more than that. From my equipment purchases yes.

I live in a place where I can rent anything I want for a job Before we bought our Epic we rented them often. We got the exact same kinds of shots, with the same artistic passion behind them, as we do now with the camera we own.

To invest more than a few K should be a rational financial decision, not an emotional one. I can't afford to not be rational with my gear investments. It's money coming out of our hard earned profits which are what we live off.

If I were buying just what I thought was inspiring or fun I'd have a lot of freaky stuff here, that no one among my clients would ever let me put as a line-item, like vintage anamorphic lenses and a Christie projector for grading, but I can't do that to my family. I buy responsibly. These things are investments, not creative toys. If I want to just trip with something new and funky I rent for a day.

Because I see this as a business, I can do it full time. In the end I have a lot more days on set doing what I am passionate about than someone who does not seek profit from their production work, so must have some other job full time to pay the bills.

Please all, realize that it is not a sin to make money at this - you NEED to to in order to quit that day job.
 
Jannard said:
There is a conflict in my posts about when we will post the new pricing structure. In one post I said Nov. 1st and in another post I said Oct. 31st.

The correct date is Nov. 1st and at about 5pm PST.

Sorry for the confusion.

Jim
Click to expand...


That's OK. I got confused and thought there were 30 days in the month, 5pm I'll have to wait even longer ;)
 
Björn Benckert said:
I personally think this business will change so rapidly quite soon so most producers/agencies etc will need to think extremely different or they will be pushed out..

We are now at the point where, for most shoots, good enough camera gear cost less than what the producer paid for the car that he drives to the set... The lab costs are hatched out of the budgets... The colorist use a for free (resolve) software... the compositor sits on a for free version of smoke.... the arri laser film recorder that used to make 5 bucks a frame and 1 frame every 4th second striking film prints is now replaced with a laptop making 4k DCP's... Kids will most likely learn how to make DCP's first year in film school, if they did not lear it at the red camp... Remember this is something that was handled by old men dressed in white coats about 2 years ago for every film...
Click to expand...

Hollywood and high end ads have changed little in terms of how they are run and how jobs are handed out. it's the same as it was 10 years ago.

Perception is reality in this business- period, and someone who spends $500 000 on media buys, or $100 000 a day for star talent wants the best - they don't care about saving $300.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top