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 :)

Red, please make a follow focus for your new cameras...

Jim Elias said:
If only it were that simple... The world would be an easier place if it were simply a matter of flipping a switch on pricing.

A couple of days ago I had to put together an O-Box for some funky mountain-bike mud-and-snow torture promo shoot. Beating up a new one would have been silly, so I rummaged around in my milk crate and got enough old proto parts together to build. It took less than fifteen minutes, from scratch, nothing came out of the milk crate pre-assembled. That was a design spec, because we knew where we wanted to land on price point, and this "lean" assembly time was necessary.

FFs are different. The parts are more complex, there is the addition of lots of pricey bought-outs such as ball bearings, the quantities are smaller, and the prep and assembly times are simply on orders of magnitude higher... it all adds up.

But we are looking at what we might do. Obviously, it's a price-performance equation: we don't want to offer half the performance for half the price, it has to be a better deal for you than that on one end or the other. But it will definitely not be a CFF-1.



Yes. There are a lot of things that might save cost. But we want to make sure we pick the right ones... dumbing down indiscriminately can result in a product that retains only the irrelevant features. Due diligence is key, which unfortunately takes some time.

Cheers

Jim
Click to expand...

Thanks for being here to listen to us Jim--I'm sensing a trend with guys named Jim.

There's a lot of us that are in situations where we focus ourselves. And the EPIC and Scarlet lines of cameras--due to their small size--will increase the number of people using RED products on their own...

So, lightweight operator focusing would be a big plus. I would think this would be a bigger market than the studio one, provided you hit an aggressive price point. For lower budget film, if you can move single sided ff to opposite side lots of ACs would be fine (again, in the lower budget scenario). In lower budget shoots you're happy if you see an old beat up ff2 show up--usually not as good as that...so a really good single sided would be a step up for people. Price is HUGE deal.

Not needing rails would be awesome plus--is there a way to have this attach via rosette rather than the rails? Or from the top of the brain? Or to the lens itself?? I would love a ff that attached directly to an Optimo Rough lens. Again, I think a lot of people would greatly appreciate a small/nimble configuration for the Epic/Scarlet & DSLR... If you don't need rails you can get by without typical baseplate...You can lower the center of gravity... there can be a number of benefits...

Being able to use the components of this ff with our studio setup would be an awesome plus. If the single sided wheel can be the 2nd wheel in a studio set up, well, great. If using with still lenses, having hard stops is a big deal. I think goes without saying must have zero/negligible backlash. Being able to see marks as an operator handholding would be great...
 
Jim, thank you for being interested in our needs. I will tell you what I like and don't like about my current FF to see if that helps you design your new unit.

I have the Cinetech Titanium. First, the features I like.

A) It is fairly lightweight.
B) It has a small diameter gear that gives me about a 2:1 rotation. So, if a lens has a 180 deg rotation from min to inf focus, it becomes a 360 deg rotation of the focus wheel.
C) It has a whip port on the back side of the unit under the lens. So, I can attach a whip for the AC to operate from the dumb side. (not perfect, but less expensive than having a studio FF)
D) It comes with an LED light with a goose neck. So, you can shine the light on the marking disc, or swing it around to light up the lens. Comes in handy on a dark set.
E) The gear can be positioned on either the front or back of the drive arm.

Here are the cons.

A) Too much play. Probably about 3mm.
B) Won't clear large lenses.
C) No marking disc on the dumb side.
 
There already ARE cheap versions of these filmmaking accessories -- guess what? People are complaining that they are cheaply-made! So they want lower prices... they just don't manufacturers employing any cost-cutting tactics that would lower quality, which really means that if material costs can't come down, they want manufacturers to find cheaper (but somehow just as skilled) labor to build these products.

I remember a similar discussion years ago about the price of filmstock, some indie people were wondering why Kodak had to make the movie stock in Rochester where U.S. workers are well-paid, when they could manufacture it in some third-world country where workers are paid pennies, just so that they could achieve their dreams of becoming a filmmaker. It's the WalMartization of the world. I know that becoming an artist encourages a certain single-minded, self-centered attitude, but it can get a bit ridiculous when people perceive well-paid factory workers building small amounts of precision products as somehow getting in the way of their dreams of being a director on a tight budget... and therefore those workers must be swept aside. Either that, or people feel that companies like ARRI have a responsibility to give away products at levels where long-term profitability and stability cannot be maintained.

Look, there is only ever going to be a limited market for studio follow-focus systems! How many Red Ones were sold? 5000? That's not enough people clamoring for follow-focus units for economics of scale to kick in where it is worth designing and building a factory to crank out a 100,000 units per year, year after year.
 
David, I agree with *everything* you just said. Though I'd humbly say that 5 years ago, there was maybe demand for X amount of Arri quality FF per year, and now (and in the coming years with DSLR, F3, AF100, Alexa, etc) there is/will be probably 10-50X that demand, and yet Arri quality FF prices have not budged. Oconnor is now offering a $1000 matte box, so clearly they have figured out how (presumably) to not exploit people but still bring about prices that are more accessible to the new wave.
 
ARRI will or will not adjust their prices depending on how the market goes, if they are seriously losing money to O'Connor on matteboxes, I'm sure they'll address it in some manner or another.

But just because someone sells a similar product at a lower price does not mean that the only solution is to reduce your prices to match. If that were the case, then there wouldn't be any expensive cars on the market, would there? I mean, you can tell Ferrari that Hondas are selling better on the market, but they would say that they are not making cars for the same customers. You can tell ARRI that low-budget indie filmmakers are buying matteboxes and follow-focus units from Zacuto or O'Connor or whatever, but that doesn't necessarily mean that ARRI feels the need to corner that part of the market as well, not if it doesn't make sense for them financially.

Of course, things change, no market is stable forever, ARRI may change their mind about who they want to sell to, but honestly, why is it so hard to fathom the concept that there are different tiers of manufacturers and customers out there???

What bugs me is that people aren't satisfied with cheaper products, they want the expensive products to be sold as cheaply as the expensive products. They can only afford a Honda but they want a Ferrari, so they are blaming Ferrari for not selling their cars at Honda prices.

You don't want to pay for ARRI gear, then don't buy it, that's how the market works. Either ARRI suffers from you not buying their gear or they have enough people buying their gear that they don't have to cater to you. And maybe this year they think "x" is their market and maybe next year they decide that they want "y" as their market, but don't think that they aren't actually paying attention to things like sales figures and what their competition is doing.

It doesn't always make sense to beat your competition on price, sometimes it makes more sense to build a brand that caters to a smaller market with deeper pockets. I don't resent Ferrari for building cars I can't afford, I just recognize that there is probably some people out there who can afford Ferrari's. Either ARRI can sustain their higher prices, or they can't. If they can't, then they'll change or go out of business. Or they might change and still go out of business, who knows. But it is certainly possible that they are able to sell their products at their prices for NOW.

And don't assume that the people buying Alexas, Reds, etc. are all new to the world of filmmaking, a certain percentage of those sales are generated by people who were buying other products in the past. I really doubt that there are 50X the number of filmmakers who need follow-focus units and pro matteboxes than there were a few years ago. The market can't really support and employ 50X the number of filmmakers. And a larger percentage of the newer customers don't need the highest end pro gear and accessories, they are fine with simpler, more basic support gear. Every kid who buys an HDSLR doesn't need a 3-stage 6x6 mattebox and a studio follow-focus, they don't need Prestons and Cinetapes nor Technocranes either.
 
Last edited:
David, I think I accidentally got in this argument. You say "why is it so hard to fathom the concept that there are different tiers of manufacturers and customers out there???". Um, it's not, I have a college degree, I took economics. I get it. I was never arguing otherwise.

Btw, I actually own an Arri FF that I use on my Red camera, so I'm very much a fan of quality.

How can I back out of arguing with you on a side that I don't care to defend but you seem keen on arguing against? :-)
 
Sorry, I'm not arguing with you directly, just indirectly and abstractly for argument's sake. Look, I certainly admit that ARRI may be wrong in judging the market, or they may need to change as the market changes, it's a fluid situation after all.

I'm not an expert by any means, I just think that too many people have gotten used to a world where everything seems dirt cheap: TV sets, MP3 players, underwear and socks, you name it, thanks to globalization, mass production, cheap transportation, underpaid workers, whatever, and I'm just reminding some people (not you) that not every type of product can follow those sorts of market trends -- there may be more people that need studio follow-focus units than there were a decade ago, but it's not on the scale of even something like a still camera tripod or UV filters, let alone basic electronics goods.
 
I agree :-)
 
Eric J. Johnston said:
Yes Shawn that’s what I am advocating…we already have prototypes which can be seen on the web BUT we want to get it right the first time. That’s why all of the feedback from you guys is so valuable.

Again, I will ask: What do you want to see in a double sided cine follow focus from OConnor?
Click to expand...

I understood us to be discussing something of a tweener, if I might call it that, from OConnor.

They surprised lots of us (I think; certainly myself at least) with their awesome mattebox--competitively priced with fresh features and clearly intended to meet professional, this is my daily job/I get paid to film expectations. Their mattebox has pricing similar to REDs with features that the RED mattebox (as currently presented) lacks -- rotating stage & attachment points for accessories. So a price/performance ratio that's very impressive compared to the rest of the market...

And the studio follow focus: brilliant. While priced similar to the Arri ff4, it offers a number of new features that reflect current trends--ie. big lenses. So again, an effort to give us more for less. Its true, I wouldn't mind that being a bit cheaper, but I'm not complaining: precision dovetails, zero lash, rotatable/adjustable focus wheels, smart(!) 15/19 clamping system--way to go!

I see OConnor (and RED) trying to design toward greater benefits for us...

So when Eric Johnston throws us a bone for a cheaper follow focus I'm assuming one like a lightened version of the studio option... I'm assuming a similar corollary to the mattebox scenario -- they offered the lightweight clip-on first (the studio version is coming). They've delivered the studio ff first (the lightweight version is coming).

And I'm saying "GO FOR IT AND GO HARD OCONNOR!" because they've demonstrated some great ideas so far and I am inclined to think they could do an awesome job, potentially selling an enormous number of ff units if they can create something that fits the lightweight/small form factor of the new Epic/Scarlet cameras.

Competition:
1. Arri's 2 lightweight ff, especially the cheaper one.
2. Cinevate Durus ff. Simple, effective, metal, zero backlash.
3. Electronic solutions from RED to control Canon, Nikon and/or RED lenses.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
Sorry, I'm not arguing with you directly, just indirectly and abstractly for argument's sake. Look, I certainly admit that ARRI may be wrong in judging the market, or they may need to change as the market changes, it's a fluid situation after all.

I'm not an expert by any means, I just think that too many people have gotten used to a world where everything seems dirt cheap: TV sets, MP3 players, underwear and socks, you name it, thanks to globalization, mass production, cheap transportation, underpaid workers, whatever, and I'm just reminding some people (not you) that not every type of product can follow those sorts of market trends -- there may be more people that need studio follow-focus units than there were a decade ago, but it's not on the scale of even something like a still camera tripod or UV filters, let alone basic electronics goods.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. I've stopped visiting various parts of the forum because I got so tired of it. Manufacturing things with metal costs money
 
Thought I saw one in a render a while back. Or am I mistaken?
 

Attachments

  • Red Follow Focus.jpg
    Red Follow Focus.jpg
    78.7 KB · Views: 0
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Does it have built-in hard stops? The lens pictured seems like the Olympus 14-35 f2, however, the 35-100 f2 doesn't have hard stops and the ring is fly-by-wire, not so FF-friendly.
Click to expand...

Yes it does have adjustable hard stops; the lens and friction gear pic was a test a few months back that had to do with a new camera introduction and a prototype FF test. Standard toothed .5, .6. and .8 pitch gears interfacing with industry standard star couplings can be used as well.
 
I may be wrong but just adding input. It appears to me that in the past ten or so years a manufacturing revolution has occurred. It appears some companies, particularly red of those known, have really based their business model on this. Some older companies have stayed in paradigms they feel comfortable with. There are pros and cons to both ways. My advise would be to those companies who really don't want to risk their reputation, is to set up sub companies which are backed by their professional names but partake in full scale modern technologies in term of manufacture. There has been amazing evolutions in material structures, design and actual manufacture in recent years. It's not always sweat shop stuff either. With cnn machining and some of the models available a lot of people are doing in house, fully designing, developing and manufacturing themselves using latest technologies and associated workflows. So why not set up sub-companies and equipt them with the expertise and latest technologies and keep some eggs in another basket just in case... The history of manufacturing has shown over and over again that this is wise thing to do. Also you can corner both ends of the market under one business structure to help sway the encroachment.
Manufacturing a helical gear for example ten years ago meant very specialized equipment and hand knobing The aluminum used to make the gear could cost for example $20 but the time taken by an operator to make it would set the price to hundreds whereas today it would be reduced radically because of CNC and other advances. I'm sure the best and first thing to do to any design is to add a double helical gear to follow focus... Ultra smooth, noiseless and no backlash.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top