What we CAN do...NEW

[I Bloom]

There's another multiplier (or is it divisor?) here: independent film (or independent D-cinema) in the U.S. does not make money.

Well even if the films aren't making money one can definitely make money in independent film just not on the backend. In that sense as a camera provider you can pay for your RED in that market, just make sure you get paid upfront.

IBloom

 

[Jaime Vallés]

There's another multiplier (or is it divisor?) here: independent film (or independent D-cinema) in the U.S. does not make money.

Says who? :wink:

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

RED is a business

RED is not just a business, it's one man's dream.....one man's wish to create the ultimate digital cinema camera.

I think you're seeing Jim's vision all wrong, he's building the RED for himself and the people in the industry who have the same needs and wants as he does.

If he were building the camera just for business reasons, don't you think RED might cost a bit more?

Or possibly lower with a smaller feature set to capture the HVX crowd?

I just don't think it's right to categorize Jim's motives as "business only".

 

[Craig Schober]

head for business

head for business

RED is not just a business, it's one man's dream.....one man's wish to create the ultimate digital cinema camera.

I think you're seeing Jim's vision all wrong, he's building the RED for himself and the people in the industry who have the same needs and wants as he does.

If he were building the camera just for business reasons, don't you think RED might cost a bit more?

Or possibly lower with a smaller feature set to capture the HVX crowd?

I just don't think it's right to categorize Jim's motives as "business only".

i can't speak for jim but am assuming he's using his passion for the ultimate digital cinema cam to drive his business decisions. those decisions concern all of his employees, his reputation and his customer base. he didn't get this far by ignoring the business angles and he wouldn't risk all those things just to get the ultimate toy all to himself. besides, what could be better than the ultimate toy than sharing the ultimate toy with the world?

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

besides, what could be better than the ultimate toy than sharing the ultimate toy with the world?

I totally agree, but I still see Jim's initial motive when creating the RED ONE to be more of an f you Panavision and Sony for ripping soo many people off with your inflated prices, let me show you how business is done with passion, not just the quest for TOP DOLLAR.

 

[Steve Gibby]

RED is not just a business, it's one man's dream.....one man's wish to create the ultimate digital cinema camera.

I think you're seeing Jim's vision all wrong, he's building the RED for himself and the people in the industry who have the same needs and wants as he does.

If he were building the camera just for business reasons, don't you think RED might cost a bit more?

Or possibly lower with a smaller feature set to capture the HVX crowd?

I just don't think it's right to categorize Jim's motives as "business only".

Who said his motives were business only? I said, RED is a business, and yes, RED is a business. You're going to school me on Jim's vision in view of the following?:

1)I've known Jim since the mid-1980's, all through the years he built Oakley.

2)Oakley sponsored many of the professional sports tours I was involved with televising for the past three decades. They didn't pay for the shows themselves, but rather sponsored the tours that we televised.

3)I was an invited attendee to the first RED One camera specification meeting at Oakley in December 2005

4) I did the first published interview with Jim where he described the RED One project, and in that interview he described his motivation for developing the camera was his passion for images and the lack of the camera he wanted being made yet.

I could keep going to a list of about 50 reasons I know that Jim's motivation for making RED One was his passion for imaging and his desire to make a camera sytem he wanted. I'm exactly the wrong person to try and school about Jim's motivation for making RED One. I have a full handle on that.

Now, RED is a business, and beyond all of Jim's imaging passion motivation, he's a very successful businessman who is challenge oriented. His first motivation is his passion, but he obviously wants RED to succeed as a business, but he's definitely not greedy about it - hence the very reasonable prices. I'm seeing Jim's vision all wrong? As I illustrated above, there's probably few people in the world who see Jim's vision for RED and his motivation for establishing RED more accurately than I do.

My long post on this thread was a healing post, designed to heal the differences here that have risen over the past few days of debate. If you knew Jim, you'd know that he is an assertive man - he lets people around him know how he feels about things. He also started this thread and obviously has posted on it periodically. I assure you if he had a problem with anything I said in my long post he would have posted a rebuttal here. My post was designed to help the entire board and RED. You're the only one who has expressed dissatisfaction with it Alexander, and then by ignoring all the positive, constructive observations I made, and then making a post accusing me of somehow not understanding Jim or his motivation for making RED.

If you want to play tennis here Alexander, bring it on. I'm real good at it and I'll play until you quit.

 

[Alexander Nikishin]

4) I did the first published interview with Jim where he described the RED One project, and in that interview he described his motivation for developing the camera was his passion for images and the lack of the camera he wanted being made yet.

Bingo. :detective2:

 

[Steve Gibby]

Bingo. :detective2:

Ahhh..yeah bingo, and do you understand the fact that I was the one who did that interview, thus I knew his motivations long before you did? Add to that all the other solid points I made, which you conveniently overlooked, and I just think you better find someone else to question than me, because yes, I have the answers. OK?

 

[Brook Willard]

Now I have to lock another thread.