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 :)

to own or to rent red.. what would you prefer?

to own or to rent red.. what would you prefer?

  • my babe 366 days per year including when february has just 28 days..

    Votes: 113 91.9%

  • i hate babes on their own.. just taking advantage after all just when others can't own their own..

    Votes: 10 8.1%
  • Total voters
    123
I'm not really sure why that is relevant, but I'm in Los Angeles, CA.

I'm really not sure why you jumped down my throat about this, though, if you think my intention is to just undercut everyone who is renting the RED as a business, that is absolutely not the case. To be honest with you I don't know how often I'll even rent out my camera. It really depends on a lot of factors. It might be "by connection only," i.e. only to close friends I know who have projects I'm interested in, or I might have plenty of projects of my own by the point the RED arrives (that is the goal) so I'd only ever shoot my own projects with it. That is really the ideal, because I'd prefer not to have to be on other peoples' shoots in various capacities other than what I want to do, which is directing. But as a backup source of income it seems like something to consider and I know I can make better offers than a big equipment rental house with high overhead.

There's something seriously wrong with a business plan where you rent out your requipment for 20-30 days and you have 100% of your money back. I mean I don't know what's wrong with this industry but cars don't work that way, computers don't work that way, nothing works that way. It's bogus. I saw that Birns & Sawyer rents an XL-1S for $225 a day -- that camera is a POS, I have one laying around here and am just trying to sell it for like $2,000 with case, with extra battery, with light, etc., so basically 8-9 days of renting it and that's $2,000. Huh? I'm confused how you could charge that. It's worth like $35 per day renting, maybe $50 would still be fair. No more.
 
Jonathan, I just believe in fair market value, not under-cutting.

You preach your business plan as do I.

I'd imagine that I wouldn't get as many equipment rentals as a low price competitor would, but it would honestly give me peace of mind to know that I'm not contributing to what in my opinion is wrong.

Honestly though, I'm not too concerned about under-cutting competitors because I'm usually called upon to do a project due to a referral or from a client who is familiar with or has seen my work.

At the end of the day, I just say do what feels right and live with it, just be prepared to hear other opinions on your practices as would be expected.
 
Well, sure, and I actually value your input as well, even if it doesn't seem like it, but isn't part of the mechanism of capitalism having competing companies offer consumers a better deal? I mean obviously at some point price wars damage all of the companies involved (not so much the consumer directly), but all I'm saying is that if someone thinks that fair market value for the RED, a prime lens set, two zoom lenses, a 300mm lens, and a tripod is $2,000 rental per day, I'd have to say I think they're crazy. That's only about $75,000 in equipment or something, and at that rate you'd have all your money back in less than 35 days of rentals. Market value is established by the overall market as far as supply and demand right? I guess if you can get that much money for it, go for it, I don't see why not, but if I'm satisfied making a bit less than that I'll offer less and hope for more clients.

The fact is because of your contacts and your skills (I assume you are much more skilled and experienced than I am), you will inevitably have a huge advantage over someone like me, so I'd almost have to offer lower prices than you just to compete because you're offering potentially a more reliable, experienced service. It's like the new guy in town has to offer something the established company does not, otherwise there's no point really in competing. Plus I only will have my own camera, most real rental companies will have many, so even if I was offering a great deal I can only potentially rent one camera at a time. As I have no interest in going into the rental market, I can't see buying more cameras to rent out either, that's just not what I'm interested in doing.

But I see your point from one perspective, yet I also think the beauty of capitalism is that competition helps consumers in the end.
 
I completely understand your situation.....

All that worries me though, and what I meant by under-cutting is to offer the package you stated at a price like $500 per day.

That in my opinion is much too low and almost defeats the purpose of even purchasing a RED camera for business or for pleasure.

If your intention in purchasing a RED is to get your foot in the door and make some connections, well guess what, your target crowd isn't a production who can only afford to pay $500 for an entire RED package.

People who put together low-ball productions stay stuck in low-ball productions. If you hold value to your work and your equipment, you price it right and move up instead of befriending the likes of rip off artists.
 
haha, well if like you said $500 is way way too low for the package, guess what? I won't ever rent it that low ;) Don't worry about it. I just don't know what the fair market value of the package is right now, but once that is established I'll have a better idea. If the fair market value was, say, $1,800 per day for all of that, and I offered $1,500 a day because I'm not a fully equipped rental company with backup cameras and years of experience in the business, I don't think I'd be undercutting, I think I'd be giving a price break based on not offering as good of service. Would that make sense, or would that still be undercutting to you? Just curious.
 
I see more what you are saying now. You just don't think it's right for someone to offer such a ridiculous deal that it basically undermines what everyone else is doing. That makes sense to me, but it'd be insanity for someone to offer like a 60-70% price break on equipment rentals wouldn't it? I mean unless they absolutely didn't care about money, in which case I don't understand what they'd even be doing renting it out at all...
 
There are companies who will be renting Red far more affordably than that (http://www.rubbermonkey.co.nz/rental_catalogue.asp) And I'm not so sure that $1,500-$2,000 per day is a "fair" rental rate for such a camera. The local cameramen that I know (guys working with $30,000-50,000 broadcast cameras) hire themselves and their cameras out at about $400-$500 a day. Red is a similarly priced piece of equipment that requires a similarly skilled operator why shouldn't the price therefore be similar?

Because it's a more powerful piece of equipment? That defeats the purpose of Jim and the team bringing the camera in at this pricepoint in the first place in my opinion. I personally am not going to be in a position to buy my own Red One for some time, however at the $1,110 weekly rental price that places like Rubber Monkey are offering, I can probably find the funds to shoot an independent feature film - that will be the beauty of Red, the ability it offers poor independents like myself to bypass the very expensive (technical) entry-point to filmmaking.
 
Well, yeah, I mean for me too that was what excited me about RED -- being able to buy the camera and shoot independent features for much cheaper than if I had to shoot with 35mm film, or shoot with 16mm film which to me is not what I want to be doing quality-wise or otherwise. So it's exciting to have a camera that would be capable of such high quality at a relatively affordable price.

$1,110 weekly rental seems unbelievably cheap to me. I'm not sure many people will be renting their cameras for that price. Who knows. What's funny is some of their other prices aren't really that good. A Sennheiser ME66 mic with boom for $135 per week? Just buy it. That's not a solid deal. But the RED for $1,110 a week is an absolute steal. Though I'm not sure what that comes with, because if that's only the camera body and all other accessories are rented separately, like recording media, batteries, lenses, tripod, etc. then what I'm saying is not far off. The camera body is actually a tiny portion of what I'd be offering. I'd be offering that plus an electronic viewfinder plus an LCD screen plus the battery kit plus a high-end tripod plus a prime lens set, two zoom lenses (18-50, 50-150), and a 300mm lens. At that point the $17,500 body is about a quarter of the offering. There's no way all of that would rent for less than $1,000 per day.
 
Well those lens options increase the cost of thing certainly (that's a lot of lenses!), but would you honestly turn down $1,500-2,000 for a week from someone who just wanted to use the basic Red setup with the two zoom lenses?

Assuming you didn't have anything else more profitable booked for that week (or two) - that's still $1,500-$2,000 in the bank, for renting out $39,000 worth of equipment for seven days. And that's a pretty good week for a freelance cameraman I would've thought.
 
$1,500 to $2,000 for seven full days? No way dude, not even close. Maybe twice that, maybe not, especially if it means I have to be on set with my equipment for that time to make sure it's not damaged, not stolen, etc. (I don't trust anyone else with my equipment who I don't know, unless it was a much bigger production with a reputable filmmaking crew). I make easily that much money off investments without even leaving my house, I don't need the extra money that badly. I'd rather be shooting my own projects. I cannot ever imagine a situation where that low of a rental price would be useful to me.

Why wouldn't I just post flyers, "I was going to rent my RED to someone for $1,500 for seven days, which I realize is cheaper than an XL-2 rents for at Birns & Sawyer, but I decided not to do it so you can rent my RED for $3,000 just call 1-800-IM-BROKE."

Even with two zoom lenses, you're looking at a $42,000 package or so. I spent $35,000 and don't have the 50-150mm zoom on order of course because it isn't available for order yet, so that'll push things past $40,000. To rent the camera for an entire seven-day week for just $1,500 means it will take me a half-year to pay for the equipment without even paying myself a salary for that time I'm on sets. Plus I'd probably have to cover my own insurance costs if I'm renting to productions that can't afford to pay much money for the equipment, then there's the cost of gas, the time I'd put into maintaining the camera equipment, cleaning lenses, etc. Any technical issues I'd have to deal with also.

If I was desperate, I would do it, sure, or if there was a special arrangement I'd figure something out. For instance, you have a great script, you badly want to direct your great script, I read your script and agree it really is great and I want to make it happen. I have boom mics, I have lights, I have a powerful editing setup, I have the RED with all the lenses you could need, and I strike a deal with you to film your movie for free, so long as I get 25% of the future profits. That kind of arrangement would be... unique, and I'd be more likely to do that than rent my equipment for too cheap. At least that way, I'm putting myself in a situation where I feel closely involved with a project I, too, now believe in.
 
JonathanLB said:
$1,110 weekly rental seems unbelievably cheap to me. I'm not sure many people will be renting their cameras for that price. Who knows. .
Click to expand...

Hi,

Rubbermonkey is an established rental house, the cost of a RED body is in line with its purchase price relative to the Viper thats also listed. I notice the Super Panther III dolly is far lower priced, relative to its cost than the Red body.

The rental business has never been easy, I don't think that will change with the revoloution.

Stephen
 
The body itself rented at $1,110 isn't unreasonable. After all, the body is just $17,500, it shouldn't rent for more than $1,110, really. That's perfectly reasonable. But if you are renting a tripod with it, which is almost never included in a base price like that, two batteries and a charger, two hard drives for recording footage, eight lenses, EVF, LCD screen, etc., then absolutely you're looking at more than triple that price.
 
JonathanLB said:
The body itself rented at $1,110 isn't unreasonable. After all, the body is just $17,500, it shouldn't rent for more than $1,110, really. That's perfectly reasonable. But if you are renting a tripod with it, which is almost never included in a base price like that, two batteries and a charger, two hard drives for recording footage, eight lenses, EVF, LCD screen, etc., then absolutely you're looking at more than triple that price.
Click to expand...

Hi,

Clearly that's a body only or body + EVF price, they list tripods, recording options lights & lenses separately.

Stephen
 
Right, which makes sense. I mean that company seems like it'd be a very good rental company, prices look much more reasonable than most rental companies I've seen.

There are two reasons I'm a buy-not-rent person. First, I hate renting things, always have. It's sometimes a bad habit, because I end up buying more DVDs than I really need or want, but I've managed to strike a fair balance by buying used DVDs so I don't feel so bad about expanding my collection ;) I just love owning what I want to use, so I can not have to go through any hassles at all, just go out and use it. It's a philosophy my business partner David shares. Second, the reason I'm able to have that philosophy is because I have the money not to have to rent most things within a reasonable price range. I believe that over time, you pay a lot more to rent something than to buy it, especially because if you shot with the RED, let's say, for just one year, you had only 50 shooting days out of the whole year, and then you sold all your equipment, you'd probably lose only about 10-15% of what you paid for it all. Even if that was $7,000 to $10,000, that's still better than renting all of that equipment for 50 days. To me, renting seems the solution when you absolutely cannot plunk down that much money at once because you don't have it. If you get a $10,000 project you can shoot in a day or two, like an ad or music video, you rent the equipment you need, the location(s) you need, and get the crew together, you spend maybe $6,000 on the budget, then you still make $4,000 for yourself. If you have little funds of your own, that's a great way to make money on a per-project basis. But to me, it just makes sense that if you have the money, you should buy the tools. Not only does it give you flexibility and save money over time, but it also gives you a potential source of income renting what you have to other people who need it short-term.
 
JonathanLB said:
$1,500 to $2,000 for seven full days?.... I make easily that much money off investments without even leaving my house, I don't need the extra money that badly. I'd rather be shooting my own projects. I cannot ever imagine a situation where that low of a rental price would be useful to me.

...To rent the camera for an entire seven-day week for just $1,500 means it will take me a half-year to pay for the equipment without even paying myself a salary for that time I'm on sets. Plus I'd probably have to cover my own insurance costs if I'm renting to productions that can't afford to pay much money for the equipment, then there's the cost of gas, the time I'd put into maintaining the camera equipment, cleaning lenses, etc. Any technical issues I'd have to deal with also.

If I was desperate, I would do it, sure, or if there was a special arrangement I'd figure something out. For instance, you have a great script, you badly want to direct your great script, I read your script and agree it really is great and I want to make it happen. I have boom mics, I have lights, I have a powerful editing setup, I have the RED with all the lenses you could need, and I strike a deal with you to film your movie for free, so long as I get 25% of the future profits. That kind of arrangement would be... unique, and I'd be more likely to do that than rent my equipment for too cheap. At least that way, I'm putting myself in a situation where I feel closely involved with a project I, too, now believe in.
Click to expand...


Jonathan, if you consider 6 months to be an unreasonable amount of time to pay off $40,000+ worth of personal equipment - please, PM me on how you do it!

I'm working off my understanding of freelance cameramen who own and operate their own cameras (TV broadcast cameras of a similar cost to a basic Red One). If you're earning $1,500-$2,000 a week just off investments then you're in a whole other league, financially, to any cameraman I know. If you're in that comfortable a position then certainly, pick and choose your jobs. Most of the guys I know aren't in a position where they (and their cameras) are being hired 50 weeks a year.

What I meant to get across in my earlier post is that I imagine Red will really open up doors for people like me, production-wise, because freelance cameramen (working with cameras of equivalent cost to Red One) do charge $1,500-$2,000 a week for their camera and their services - because of that, Red will allow people to shoot cinema-release quality footage at a cost far below that of any other current cinema cameras.

And as for your idea about shooting for that price only if you get 25% of net profits, I'm not aware of ANY cameraman working out that sort of deal for themselves. Though again, if you can do it - more power to you mate! I'm just not sure your expectations are particularly realistic
 
I would hardly be a cameraman if I'm supplying all of the equipment to an entire shoot. In that case it's likely I would take on the entire cost of the project and make myself a producer, if the person had the script and wanted to direct the project, but I really don't have much of an interest in producing at this time.

I just don't think you're going to find a lot of people willing to rent a full complement of RED equipment for $1,500-2,000 for a seven-day period. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe for five days, but I've rarely heard of seven days of consecutive shooting professionally; the unions don't allow that from my understanding, not that I care about the unions because I'll probably do non-union work, hehe, but still.

I mean for someone to rent themselves and their full camera package for $1,500 for seven days, ouch man, $200 per day? That's all they are worth with at least $40,000 in equipment? I doubt that very much. I'd personally pay a good DP $300-500 per day to film any professional project I do, and wouldn't expect them to bring any equipment, just their skills. Granted a DP is probably more experienced than a camera operator, but the point is, $200 per day for a RED with two zoom lenses even and a full filming kit (batteries, media, EVF, etc.) plus the person to professionally operate all of that... seems pretty low to me.

Maybe I'm wrong, and people here are free to correct me, because I really don't know, but from what everyone else here was saying that isn't going to be the case very often.

That being said, I think you're right that the RED will reduce the cost of filmmaking for smaller independents and allow them to get amazing, better-than-film quality for a much, much lower cost. So you are definitely going to have more opportunities to film better quality stuff in the future, no doubt about that! It's an exciting time.
 
Not all of the equipment, just the camera (by which I mean: lens, batteries, and recording media - the stuff you need to actually capture the footage). Things like tripods, dolleys, lights, sound equipment are a seperate matter. And that rate probably wouldn't be for the cameraman's services, most likely the production's DP would handle the camera. If you're not willing to rent the camera without yourself present to handle it, then I don't know, that would be a seperate matter for whoever hired you.

And I'm sorry, I meant a 5-6 day working week. Maybe I'm wrong though, just because a Red One costs the same price as a TV broadcast camera doesn't make it the same as a TV broadcast camera. It is a far more capable piece of equipment, maybe that's worth a premium... I don't know. Though I would have thought that the rental cost of such a camera should simply be relative to its purchase cost.
 
How much do you guys think I could get per week for a long-term loan (3-4 months) to a rental shop?

I will have everything EXCEPT the Prime lenses, 300mm zoom, EVF, and flash recording options.

I will have RED-RAM, RED-DRIVE, RAW port, LCD, battery pack, premium pack, 18-50mm zoom, 50-85mm zoom.

I'm sure there will be some established rental houses that need more RED ONE's then they have available for the first few months. Is $500/week about right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top