What if they raise the price?

[Kyle Presley]

so what? therefore he can afford to run a money-losing business? i don't care what your net worth is, no one starts a business with that kind of cavalier attitude...no one who is any good at what they do, anyway.

i hope he makes another billion from RED. and not because it's inexpensive, but rather, because it's BRILLIANT. and revolutionary.

Dude, he's not going to lose money. I'm saying he probably won't need to raise the price for the extended period of R&D. He's well off enough and a marketing genius. There's no way he'll lose money with this in the long run, even if he does inititally.

 

[Clayton Harper]

Red losing money

Red losing money

Hmmmm,

3000 current reservations x $25000 average purchase price = $75,000,000

I wouldn't be surprised if NRE and salaries got covered in the first year.

Although, who knows how much the mysterium costs to tool up and fabricate. Maybe you have to sell your soul to the devil. :devil:

 

[Sam Druckerman]

Hmmmm,

3000 current reservations x $25000 average purchase price = $75,000,000

I wouldn't be surprised if NRE and salaries got covered in the first year.

I agree.

Also, for those who may be wondering....

Jim stated last month on a different board...
--------------------------------------------------
[quote name='Jim Jannard' date='May 8 2007, 09:25 AM' post='171904']

"RED is a money making venture..."

Jim
[/quote]
-------------------------------------------------
As far as the price going up in the future...

in the words of Doris Day....

"QUE SERA SERA WHATEVER WILL BE WILL BE
THE FUTURE'S NOT OURS TO SEE QUE SERA SERA"

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

"Only Finner is allowed to quote Doris Day, or David Hasslehoff" - Plato

 

[tj williams]

Finner is not Nancy R she would never wear that belt buckle!
Lord why only 3000 reservations, they went into NAB with 1500. A friend of mine was in the tent saw the movie, thinking about reserving and he told me " I looked out of the tent and there were several people waving their checkbooks and credit cards and demandingto be let in, I thought I'd better buy one before I leave". I met him at Dinner and he suprised me with his reservation card and got a pretty good laugh.

I say 1500 before NAB 2500 to present day total reservations: 4000 average spend with some glass etc.
30K $120M gross receivables. approximate down payments in hand: $1.5M SN and 10% of 17.5 2500=$4,375000
so cash in hand is just under 6M My guess is development is paid for out of the reservation fees and the company is in profit the first year after they deliver cameras. This is why Jim is a billionaire..and you and I are still camera-persons.
Actually none of us can know..(closely held co.) fun to speculate... For me I'm glad they make a bunch of money it's always cheaper to drive a corvette than a Ferrari and just as fast....

 

[planet e]

I'm saying he probably won't need to raise the price for the extended period of R&D. He's well off enough and a marketing genius. There's no way he'll lose money with this in the long run, even if he does inititally.

dood, that's way more articulate than what you actually said....thanks for the clarification, though...

 

[Sam Druckerman]

"Only Finner is allowed to quote Doris Day, or David Hasslehoff" - Plato

OMG! You're right! What the h*% was I thinking?

This is what happens when redusers go to long without a good RED fix.

 

[number6]

Still cannot shake this feeling the RED is going to ascend in price. I think my reason for this is because the camera maker probably follows the golden metric rule. That is, "Sell unto others that which you would buy for yourself!"

Now, we all know that since the RED was first offered to the public there have been advancements in technology that could be added to the original design to make it a better camera. (The Kodak sensor filter perhaps?) Jim probably wants the very latest on his camera, but feels it is unfair to have a better camera than he sells the rest of us (no seriously, I think he is really like this because "He's a better man than the rest of us, this Gunga Jim").

So, what's a guy to do? Well, the honorable way out is to spiff up all the cameras that have been pre-ordered, and then when the camera comes out, re-price it to new buyers at its PROPER markup, after adding the new flashy stuff.

But even with this feeling of foreboding I won't be ordering a third camera, because a bargain is not a bargain if you don't need it, and I can easily get by with two cameras, no problem. Besides, I don't have the cash...

 

[Finner]

#6 Let me see if I understand this right. You are buying minimal to no accesories for your camera (If I remember right 1 stills lense no matte box ND filters or any other critically needed camera support equipment) but you are spending your money on 2 bodies?????????????????????

If this is true I feel you really really need some advice here. A body and one lense will not make red footage look good. Lighting and camera accesories is the key to a good image a good camera body alone will not do it. I feel without a doubt that I could take the cheapest HDV prosumer camera on the market and shoot a project with good accesories and lighting and outperform the red shot with one lense and available lighting any day. Spending money to buy 2 cameras and sacrificing by having no accesories is not a little crazy it is full on certifiable. I am not going to post anymore then this as from what I see you are closed minded to experienced advice.

With your self proclaimed highly limited experience you may stand a small small chance of producing some decent work with a red camera that is supported properly. If you go ahead with buying 2 cameras and no support equipment you will make some people very happy when they are able to buy your used cameras from you on e-bay because things failed.

I am not trying to be a jerk here as honestly I am just trying to help and I would be much more of a jerk if I did not inform you of the cliff you are about to fall off. Like I said I am not going to say anymore about this but I sure hope some more people on here with camera experience add to this and try and help you see the huge mistake you are making.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

Ouch.

Well I do agree that it comes down to accessories, though. Trust me there's no way I can make my XL-2 look good with what I have, to be hoenst. But I could make it look good with the right tools. A high quality tripod, a P+S technics unit, some Canon lenses, use the right lighting, etc. and I could absolutely make even just normal MiniDV look pretty solid. Just look at 28 Days Later! They shot that movie (I couldn't believe that... I just learned that a few weeks ago) with the XL-1 I think! Wow.

It's definitely the extra tools and accessories that make all of the difference, that's the key thing I've learned in my limited time in the industry so far. I used to think all you needed was a few lights, a camera, and a mic, plus a decent computer to do editing. Now I realize that *everything* has accessories that make all of the difference. Just a few lights is not enough. You need flags, scrims, silks, power equipment for the lights, etc. Just a computer isn't usually enough (for high performance), you might need other add-ons to make rendering easier, and you definitely need software. Just the camera isn't even close, you have all kinds of additional accessory needs that elevate your project from amateur to professional.

It's much more understandable how much goes into a big movie for me now that I realize all this.

Although that was harshly put, Finner, I still think that's solid advice...

 

[number6]

Ouch.


Although that was harshly put, Finner, I still think that's solid advice...

Ha! Jonathan, no need for the ouch. That's just Finner's experience with movie making clouding his vision (no offence) to the point that he can not see any alternative. I do not bring this closed evf sightline to movie making. I see it more from a panoramic view, probably because I have not been trained on the monkey bars to swing only this way or that. (I see myself more as the orangutan that walks around scratching his head). But enough of the Animal Planet promo. Here, once again, is my path to success.

Get camera bodies first. Lenses and accessories pointed at actors do not permanently record anything.

Get as good a glass as one can afford, but don't worry about it being the latest greatest. The glass on my little Canon GL1 produced an image (better than my XL-1) that would blow most large screen tv watchers away with its clarity, and with the lens coating it has (I forget the name...flourine or something) it gave a patina to the scenes, both indoor and out, that you just don't mess with in post. I'm thinking most movie goers do not need perfection as much as movie makers need perfection. Anyway, I'll decide on, and pick up some inexpensive glass after the fact.

Realize who you are. This is the most heavily weighted part, I think. And here is who I think I am at the moment. I am someone who will eventually have responsibility to no one but myself. Then, I can take chances like shooting for the rest of my life (although after a couple of centuries if I haven't satisfied at least some of my need to be understood, I may change career paths.) That is, I can try and fail time and again with no consequence. I apply no pressure from within to suceed the first time out, and there will be little applied externally (although I will feel I owe anyone who works on my projects my best shot at getting THEM some feel good moments from working on a project that at the very least, doesn't embarrass.

This is getting too long, so I will summarize by saying that I will tell a good story and hopefully well acted or at least, well edited, and capture it all on as large a format as I can. Then, I will assemble the parts, probably without much post production work, and submit it to various film festivals. IF the story produces waves from the reviewers, it will get a look. And if it is picked up by a distributor, they have ways of taking bad data and making it look o.k. But if I supply them TONS of data (4k) to work with, then they can make it look FANTASTIC!

So, to Finner who will probably not answer this post, I am just saying that you seem to approach movie making like we are building rockets. We're not (unless you count the Astronaut Farmer). We're just throwing mud at the wall to see if it sticks. And if I could use a NASCAR analogy Finner, then your car would probably look much cleaner and less dented than mine at the end of the race. But while mine would be all dented from hitting the wall and muddy and grassy from spinning out a few times, still, if I had the best driver (story) my car would finish ahead of your car at the end.

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

lol, you sound like me number6, not quite ingrained in the industry now, just wanting to do your own thing. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I try to learn as much as I can from veterans here, but I also admit to a brash attitude that sometimes, the big boys are wrong, and not everything has to go the way they think. I don't care if someone has worked with film for 30 years, for instance, and thinks digital can never compete. Their opinion -- however much experience they have -- means nothing to me. It's worthless, actually it's less than worthless because not only does it not help me, it's a lie. And that's a problem to me.

This probably happens to some extent with every generation, and if it didn't, we'd have problems. New people have to enter industries like this, look at how they run, and decide what we don't like. I don't care how ridiculous that may sound to long-time professionals who think everything is done perfectly, the fact is, new people bring new ideas and new ways of doing things. If they didn't, the industry would never change.

Imagine if every independent filmmaker who set out to make a movie said, "Well, film school / film books / veteran filmmakers told me that you can't make a movie without a 2nd A.C., a 1st A.D., a script supervisor, ten grips and gaffers, all established professional actors, etc. etc." Many very good movies never would have been made. This is an industry especially where great projects are never made by followers, only by leaders, and mediocre minds always see problems and obstacles where great minds see challenges and opportunities. Not "I cannot make this movie because I can't afford a 50-person crew," but "I will make this movie with a 10-person crew because that's all I have."

But I can understand both sides. If you're an established professional, you think you know more than anyone new to the industry, and your way of doing things is proven and right, plus you hardly want to encourage new competition to enter the market. Better to make anyone new feel stupid and discourage them.

When it comes down to it, though, you are right, the story is paramount. I may not know as much about every technical element of filmmaking yet, but I come from an intense background in film studies, film criticism, philosophy, storytelling, and writing, so I would absolutely take my artistic skills and storytelling skills over anyone else's technical skills because I don't intend to work for other people technically. I intend to make my own movies and as the writer-director I can hire people to deal with technical issues, but none of that would mean anything if I couldn't tell a good story and make it happen.

Still, I look at the variety of tools available as means to tell my story, and I strongly believe that the best directors know enough about every element of filmmaking to communicate effectively with their cast and crew so that their story is told in the best manner. That being said, it really isn't rocket science. It's just putting images to the screen with sounds attached, and a lot of what you don't want to do, you can pay people to do for you provided you understand how it is done on a general level.

All that being said, I always figure I have much to learn from anyone else in the industry and everyone has knowledge I can absorb, so I will listen to advice and take everything under consideration, but that never means I'm bound to think that everything is correct just because "that's how everyone does it" or "that's how it's always been done." In my experience, history is made by people doing things differently based on their own ideas, not following what has already been done. Even so, there are reasons for most conventions that are rooted in good logic and tried-and-true methodology, but in the film industry I think that's less true than anywhere else I've seen. I think a lot of what is done really is just done because that's how it was always done in the past, and probably in the past it made sense, but a lot of times with changing technology it makes no sense.

 

[Zakaree Sandberg]

2 bodies? one lens? I guess im missing something..

 

[Jonathan L. Bowen]

One of the bodies is psychic, it sees everything near it without needing the cumbersome materialism of this so-called lens you speak of!

 

[number6]

2 bodies? one lens? I guess im missing something..

Zakaree, actually it is two bodies and NO lenses, yet. I will have a lens for each camera before shooting, and every shot will be a two camera shot. I just think that you get as much high quality data as possible and sort things out in edit. And you make it all available to a distributor if they want to tweak the final product. Telling a distributor that you have two camera angled shots in 4k could translate into a higher bid for your movie... if the content is good enough.

 

[number6]

I always figure I have much to learn from anyone else in the industry and everyone has knowledge I can absorb, so I will listen to advice and take everything under consideration, but that never means I'm bound to think that everything is correct just because "that's how everyone does it" or "that's how it's always been done." In my experience, history is made by people doing things differently based on their own ideas, not following what has already been done. Even so, there are reasons for most conventions that are rooted in good logic and tried-and-true methodology, but in the film industry I think that's less true than anywhere else I've seen. I think a lot of what is done really is just done because that's how it was always done in the past, and probably in the past it made sense, but a lot of times with changing technology it makes no sense.

Jonathan, you made so many points that I agree with in your post that it was difficult to pull out one that I agree with more. The one above does it best. I do not in any way intend to demean any or all of what is being done to make movies, but the fact that what is done now is so far above what was done in the past that if the technology were king, then no one would pay 10 bucks for an old movie like Casablanca (remember that Ford Tri-motor airplane take-off sequence? That was some bad special effects!). Point is, people still do buy and enjoy those old movies. So maybe, Content is King.

edit: just watched Casablanca again, and realized that the suspect special effects were for an approach and landing at the beginning and that the plane was not a Ford Tri-motor, but was a single engine...probably a Fokker. The three engined aircraft was in the take-off scene and may have been a Dakota (DC-3). That actually looked like and probably was, real.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Telling a distributor that you have two camera angled shots in 4k could translate into a higher bid for your movie...

I don't think a distributor cares whether you shot a scene with two cameras or not, or even whether it is technically 4K -- they might care, though, that it has decent production values (of which 4K may be a factor, just as 35mm may be a factor in that) and they might care that it is well-directed and well-edited (of which, more camera angles from two-camera shooting may or may not be a factor), well-acted, well-written, they may even care if it turned out to be a decent movie (though not always.)

Truth is, what they mostly care about is if their target audiences would buy it. They want to know if they can sell the darn thing within their advertising budget. Now each distributor may favor one target audience over another, and that specific market may care about some things more than others.

But it's not as simple as "my movie will be more sellable because I shot it with two cameras." And running two cameras on everything is not really productive all the time, or feasible -- for example, if you are shooting handheld and looking 360 degrees in the course of the move, or shooting from the back of a small car at the driver or something. There is no reason to run a second camera angle when it's not adding anything because all you will be doing is having more useless footage to deal with in post. I've done many two-camera features and generally the second camera is running maybe 50% of the time, maybe 70% at the most. Some spaces don't even allow room for a second camera.

 

[number6]

I don't think a distributor cares whether you shot a scene with two cameras or not, or even whether it is technically 4K -- they might care, though, that it has decent production values (of which 4K may be a factor, just as 35mm may be a factor in that) and they might care that it is well-directed and well-edited (of which, more camera angles from two-camera shooting may or may not be a factor), well-acted, well-written, they may even care if it turned out to be a decent movie (though not always.)

Truth is, what they mostly care about is if their target audiences would buy it. They want to know if they can sell the darn thing within their advertising budget. Now each distributor may favor one target audience over another, and that specific market may care about some things more than others.

But it's not as simple as "my movie will be more sellable because I shot it with two cameras." And running two cameras on everything is not really productive all the time, or feasible -- for example, if you are shooting handheld and looking 360 degrees in the course of the move, or shooting from the back of a small car at the driver or something. There is no reason to run a second camera angle when it's not adding anything because all you will be doing is having more useless footage to deal with in post. I've done many two-camera features and generally the second camera is running maybe 50% of the time, maybe 70% at the most. Some spaces don't even allow room for a second camera.

David, any point you make I take seriously. But as far as the two camera angle goes,(one closer usually, the other at a different distance)the main purpose of that is to cover my inexperience with many of the things you yourself have discussed on various threads. That is, when is it better to do a closeup and when does an intermediate or long shot work best? This will cover me in edit because then I will have a choice. Plus, and I've had this happen before when videoing, sometimes stuff happens and you only have one shot of a scene. I've been able to save a song within a public concert because of the extra camera, plus, cutting the two angles together in edit has made some ordinary footage, better. And while I can't see my original post as I'm writing this, I don't think I said two camera angles would make my movie more "sellable"... I think my reference was that if the movie were already sellable due to the acting, directing, editing, story etc., then having options where some of that was weak might cause a distributor to see something in my unused footage that would make it possible to strengthen that weakness by re-cutting. And because of that potential to correct a flaw, maybe...just maybe, would prompt a distributor to "bid" more for distro rights.

But what i would really like to see on this forum somewhere is an honest-to-dog distributor join in an say explicitly how they approach a festival film, from their point of view.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I understand what you're saying about how two cameras can give you more editing options to fix problems from inexperience... but when a distributor rejects a movie, the issue is generally more profound than something that can be fixed by cutting to an alternative angle. Now it's true that sometimes a distributor buys a movie and then wants to recut it, in which can having more angles may help -- on the other hand, it also makes it harder for you to force them to accept the scene the way it was cut, if you are really proud of that edit. Sometimes saying that there is no alternative angle gives you some leeway to stick to your guns.

Anyway, it's not a bad plan because the other thing additional angles or sizes can do is allow you to trim the length of a movie a little easier if it runs long.

However, I spent many years working with just a single camera and it does teach you filmmaking faster because you have to make hard choices and live and die by them, rather than give yourself a safety net all the time. I would think more about how a second camera can be used effectively to make a story point rather than see it just as a way of not thinking carefully about the cutting plan of the scene while you are shooting. Sometimes all you learn from running two cameras on everything is to do it that way again the next time.

 

[number6]

I understand what you're saying about how two cameras can give you more editing options to fix problems from inexperience... but when a distributor rejects a movie, the issue is generally more profound than something that can be fixed by cutting to an alternative angle. Now it's true that sometimes a distributor buys a movie and then wants to recut it, in which can having more angles may help -- on the other hand, it also makes it harder for you to force them to accept the scene the way it was cut, if you are really proud of that edit. Sometimes saying that there is no alternative angle gives you some leeway to stick to your guns.

Anyway, it's not a bad plan because the other thing additional angles or sizes can do is allow you to trim the length of a movie a little easier if it runs long.

However, I spent many years working with just a single camera and it does teach you filmmaking faster because you have to make hard choices and live and die by them, rather than give yourself a safety net all the time. I would think more about how a second camera can be used effectively to make a story point rather than see it just as a way of not thinking carefully about the cutting plan of the scene while you are shooting. Sometimes all you learn from running two cameras on everything is to do it that way again the next time.

David, all food for thought. Someday it will be more apropo because I'm not yet at the point where I am confident my way of cutting a scene would be the best for the success of the movie.

I'm not sure how the choice of angles allows one to cut the length of a movie if it runs too long, but I would really like to hear more. I do like the Mark Twain approach of "I would have written less if I'd had more time", so that idea intrigues me.

Good thoughts about becoming second camera dependent. Will pace up and doun on that one for a few days.

Thanks for taking the time. You make me think, and most of the time that is not a bad thing.