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 :)

Panavision

Sanjin Jukic said:
I thought about that is not a bad idea to get together with RED (that obviously needs to get an enlargement sooner or later)
Click to expand...

What camera number are we up to now anyway? I remember numbers in the 6000's from many months ago. Even if RED has sold just 6000 units @ $17,500/unit that is $105m in revenue and we all know that the average price of a package from RED is considerably higher. I know there is big R&D spending going on that eats up a lot of those revenues, but I would say RED is pretty big already.

Panavision has a lot of great assets but I think RED has done a great job to catch up to (and some may say, surpass) their technological capabilities, so I'm not sure what benefit those assets would really have for RED. Especially given the potential liabilities that RED might be exposed to. The nice thing about having Jim's wealth is that he can afford to invest in strategic expertise without having to leverage big asset purchases and take on huge debt. I think RED is very similar to Apple in corporate philosophy and Apple has been very opposed to company purchases or mergers for almost it's entire history. Only recently has it opened it vast war-chest to acquire a few small companies, and only to gain expertise in areas that were completely new for Apple. Arguably Panavision's most important and valuable asset is it's glass and RED has already made leaps and bounds in this area, probably due to Jim's long-time involvement in optics in general (plus his love for cameras.)

N.B. Don't mean to talk about you like you're not here Jim, just fascinated by RED as a business case.
 
Todd M. said:
What camera number are we up to now anyway? I remember numbers in the 6000's from many months ago. Even if RED has sold just 6000 units @ $17,500/unit that is $105m in revenue and we all know that the average price of a package from RED is considerably higher. I know there is big R&D spending going on that eats up a lot of those revenues, but I would say RED is pretty big already.

Panavision has a lot of great assets but I think RED has done a great job to catch up to (and some may say, surpass) their technological capabilities, so I'm not sure what benefit those assets would really have for RED. Especially given the potential liabilities that RED might be exposed to. The nice thing about having Jim's wealth is that he can afford to invest in strategic expertise without having to leverage big asset purchases and take on huge debt. I think RED is very similar to Apple in corporate philosophy and Apple has been very opposed to company purchases or mergers for almost it's entire history. Only recently has it opened it vast war-chest to acquire a few small companies, and only to gain expertise in areas that were completely new for Apple. Arguably Panavision's most important and valuable asset is it's glass and RED has already made leaps and bounds in this area, probably due to Jim's long-time involvement in optics in general (plus his love for cameras.)

N.B. Don't mean to talk about you like you're not here Jim, just fascinated by RED as a business case.
Click to expand...

Sure, Red has nothing to gain really from Panavision in terms of tech. What they would acquire is a vast rental network that is the gold standard of the industry. Renting Red gear would become significantly easier. It is good today but it would get even better.
 
It's my understanding that Jim has no interest in owning a rental house and how would Panavision being owned by red make renting a red camera any easier than it already is?
Panavision already rents red cameras and I'm sure they are available with PV mounts to boot along with the countless other rental houses out there whom rent Red Cameras.
 
Just to add to a few posts back about Panavision. Here in Australia Panavision own quite a number of RED's and they are constantly in demand, even to the point they cross-hire in privately owned Reds. They are very RED friendly and treat RED just like any other. They even let us take in all the RED primes and 18-85 to check them out with their tech on a projector. I stands to reason that the issues people faced with RED and Panavision was entirely a office to office view and standpoint, not a company policy at all.
 
It seems like Panavision's support of Red differs from one branch to the next. For sure, the ones that are welcoming Red are certainly contributing to the longevity of their company as a whole, those that are not are part of the problem. Opening options to customers is just a wise decision. Some of the branches realize that not everyone has the funding to rent the top of the line Panny with a full set of Primos, thus the cams of other companys should serve to provide for those with less than stellar means. Hopefully the new management will realize this and make this standard policy for all branches.
 
I wonder if Panavision has ever heard the old saying, "If you can't beat them, join them." Why not rent Red cameras?
 
I was actually being facetious; Panavision has something like a quarter billion in debt (not that I think Jim couldn't manage that, or that the debt couldn't be picked up at a discount), but Red doesn't need Panavision. Running a service business doesn't seem at all accretive to Red's model.

There's only one meaningful reason to consider buying Panavision, and that is brand equity. All the old-schoolers who scoff at the Red as being one step above a consumer handycam, all the uninformed who believe that only a camera with the word "Arri" or the word "Panavision" on it can be considered pro gear. You'd be amazed how prevalent those views are... the amount of misinformation out there is astonishing.

Brand equity has a lot of value, but I suspect the value is not equal to the cost in this case. Which, by the way, could be a real problem for Panavision in the future. If I were a note-holder on Panavision, I'd be looking to unload at a big discount about now... maybe Jim will be the one getting a call instead of the other way around.

- Tim
 
About the view of Red as below the likes of Arri, Aaton and Panavision, I really have no understanding as to why these views have come about. Granted, there were some bugs when the One first came out but those problems are long long gone. Even recently ASC and others have been publishing articles highlighting bad Red experiences.

This hatred of digital is quite prevalent in the photography world as well, it is the minority that feels this way. Shooting both, I see a need for certain tools in certain situations. I love my Medium format Mamiya and the stellar print quality, the brick that it is. Still, I would much rather take a 7D with decent zoom and a prime on a trip through Europe.

I honestly believe that some of the hardcore film defenders will eventually, under pressure, be forced to go digital and find the creative options to be quite refreshing. The best way to make film guys jealous is to do things they can easily do with film. Opinions change over time, they always do. For example, when Asian cars came stateside, they were considered jokes, tin cans with names like the Toyopet. Over the years they improved, innovated and became universally accepted. Today, many (wrongly) consider them to be higher quality than their American counterparts.

There are a few directors that have vowed never to go digital, namley Tarantino and Spielberg, who may end up in a situation where they are trying to make a big budget film with heavy vfx work and will be forced by the studios into shooting digitally. In this economy, you need to get the most bang for your buck and frankly, money not spent on stock, development and telecine, is money that goes to post and promotion. 99% of audience members can't tell the difference and many people in the industry cannot even tell. Studios realize this which is why cameras like the Red are growing in popularity. As much as I respect guys like Herzog, they are wrong about Red and digital in general.
 
Tom Lowe said:
I wonder if Panavision has ever heard the old saying, "If you can't beat them, join them." Why not rent Red cameras?
Click to expand...

I suspect they will once Epic comes out.
 
Does this mean that another Panavision Digital cam is on the way? Sorry if this was already discussed. 37 megapixels translates to what in k terms?
 
Look at the weird sampling pattern - diagonal RGB stripes with diamond shaped pixels. Very small pixels too, which might not be a good thing. As always, once we can point it at a test chart....

Graeme
 
It will be interesting to see if this sensor ever makes in into a cinema camera. I still would go Red because I can actually own the camera but 37 megapixels at 30 frames per second is photographers dream.
 
Jason Kartalian said:
All those film cameras at Panavision, with all their exclusive patents and remarkable engenerring have been sitting there gathering dust for the last three years, and it's only going to get worse. I know people that work there, they have rooms and rooms of cameras that haven't been active in years. The 800 pound gorilla got old and grey...
Click to expand...

It's not 37 mp as you know them though.... Just go look at the image of the sensor layout. You won't get the high measured resolution you would from a 37mp bayer pattern sensor, that's for sure.

Graeme
 
Graeme, I trust that your sensor knowledge is lightyears squared ahead of mine. I have no clue about what they are talking about. I just see highlights like 37 mp at 30 fps and I get excited about the future.
 
The last thing Red should do is become a rental house. That would be like sticking a knife in the back of Offhollywood and the other providers who have been supporting Red since day one. Not to mention every other Red owner who plans to hire out their gear.

Rule #1 of business ethics: You do not compete with your customers.

So other than a famous name Panavision wouldn't seem to offer much for Red. Much better for Red to have Panavision as a customer.
 
Todd M. said:
What camera number are we up to now anyway? I remember numbers in the 6000's from many months ago. Even if RED has sold just 6000 units @ $17,500/unit that is $105m in revenue and we all know that the average price of a package from RED is considerably higher. I know there is big R&D spending going on that eats up a lot of those revenues, but I would say RED is pretty big already.

Panavision has a lot of great assets but I think RED has done a great job to catch up to (and some may say, surpass) their technological capabilities, so I'm not sure what benefit those assets would really have for RED. Especially given the potential liabilities that RED might be exposed to. The nice thing about having Jim's wealth is that he can afford to invest in strategic expertise without having to leverage big asset purchases and take on huge debt. I think RED is very similar to Apple in corporate philosophy and Apple has been very opposed to company purchases or mergers for almost it's entire history. Only recently has it opened it vast war-chest to acquire a few small companies, and only to gain expertise in areas that were completely new for Apple. Arguably Panavision's most important and valuable asset is it's glass and RED has already made leaps and bounds in this area, probably due to Jim's long-time involvement in optics in general (plus his love for cameras.)

N.B. Don't mean to talk about you like you're not here Jim, just fascinated by RED as a business case.
Click to expand...

Apple bought Ron Brinkmans company after he created Shake. Small companylike you said.

Don't know of any others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top