What will *you* rent it for?

[Russ McDonald]

Brook is right schooled was the wrong word to use. I should of used enlightened, I apologize Nathan

Nathan’s Movie

First and foremost at 100,000 dollars you are not making X-men 4.
And you are not casting, Jodi Foster so you are making a personal film. A small ground breaking, fuck the studio’s film because you are a maverick. So no car chases for you, or explosions. Just an art house film with minimal locations, with a run time of 90min. Why 90min you decry Nathan. Because it’s short and the theater can have more showings in a day that’s why, which means you more likely to get pick up for distribution from those soul-sucking studios.


Your going to shoot your talking actors over 3 weeks, because you do need to sleep you won’t, but it’s nice to have goals. On this schedule makes it 5 pages a day over 18 shooting days for you opus. I am assuming you want to make money

100,000 grad is the budget.

You have 70,000 for production
You have 30,000 for post production, and marketing at a festival of your choice.

Production.
3500 a day for a Red cam, with primes, matte box, fallow focus, DP/operator , who knows what he’s doing, 1 paid assistant camera guy, and a PA camera bitch.

1000 a day will get you an antiquate small movie grip truck with electric, with crew.

300 a day for a pee wee and some track.

500 a day 2 man sound crew.

300 a day for make up

150 a day for wardrobe

150 a day script supervisor

300 a day prop and art department


6200 a day all at 3 day weeks that’s…………………….. 55,800
21 days of insurance so you can rent the gear……………..6,000
To feed the crew DO NOT SCIMP HERE………………..8,000
69,800

Post Production
One bad ass mac 3.0 quad, 16 gigs of ram, 3.5 TB raid, Nvidia Q/fx4500 graphics Card with 30 in display, Final cut studio 2, and to top it off 3yrs apple care. Add tax and shipping

17,500.00
Find a hungry composer for your film score
Because at this budget you can’t license music …… 2,500.00

ADR if you need it, and just enough folly, foot steps,
paper noise, clothing sounds to boost your PV…… 3000.00

Your left with a little over 7000.00 to spread around to your actors, electronic press kits, some travel expenses to a festival you get in because your film is brilliant, save about 500.00 For a PR person at the beginning, get them to send out a press releases to the Hollywood reporter, and Daily Variety. If you do your odds go way up of getting listed in Tuesday’s in production sections. You will have Acquisition Exec’s reach out to you shot a single frame.

Most importantly you have a done movie, which you own all the ancillary rights to. So when you win the top prize. They’ll be killing each other to acquire your film Nathan. Because you spent that money up front for the RED, you can retain all 4k distribution and broadcast rights for yourself. So when 4k finds its way into living rooms. You make even more money. All this for just under 100,000.

Stop it Dave your're making me misty.

 

[kmikami]

If VariCam's are still renting for $850-$1200 a day, then why shouldn't something 4 times better not be worth at least that much?

So which is it? Is the rental price based on the cost of the equipment or the production value the equipment brings? If you're basing the rental price on equipment cost then obviously the Red needs to be about half or less of the rental cost of a Varicam. But if you're saying that Red should be $1200 a day and is 4x better than a Varicam then the Varicam rental cost needs to drop to $300 a day. You can't have it both ways!

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

adobeone,

I mostly agree, but you missed a few things. Oh, and forget the FX4500 video card, that's $1400 wasted compared to an X1900XT that will actually outperform it 99% of the time. The FX4500 is for running stereo shutter glasses and specific CAD software that needs multiple hardware overlays and stencil buffers. Not needed here.

I personally wouldn't divide up a 100K budget that way, but it's all subjective and will vary depending on the actual script/project.

 

[Russ McDonald]

Agree with you there. I don't know what Nathan's film is. But 100,000 tight no matter how you slice it. If it's a good movie that got embraced buy the world. Those 4k rights would be worth millions.

Thanks for the Graphic card correction good sir, so how much do we save Nathan on that.

 

[I Bloom]

Why do Varicams rent for so much...

Why do Varicams rent for so much...

If you are upset because a $30,000 dollar camera is renting for $1000, per day, then I think you may again be missing a basic tenet of this terrible dream called capitalism.

First of all if you rent a RED or any other film equipment for 30 days straight (30 x $1000 = $30,000) you are going to get a major discount, most rental places discount based on a 3 day week and maybe a 10 day month. It's when you are shooting for three days that you might pay that full price.

But beyond that this is again all about supply and demand. There is a limited supply of people willing to spend $80,000 on a Varicam. Those people make a profit in part based on the fact that the upfront cost of buying is so high, it's easier and profitable for their clients who sell content to pay in small amounts for those few days that they are actually shooting.

The same economics apply to real estate and just about everything else. Most people who pay rent are paying an amount that is greater then the mortgage on the property they are renting simply because they could never come up with a down payment at any given time.

RED is a smaller investment than other high end HD gear, so there will be a larger supply of people ready to buy one, thus the price will surely drop once it becomes widely available. But it may never drop below a certain point, simply because we will at some point reach the limited number of people ready to make that smaller investment.

This situation benefits people who want to rent equipment because there is a financial incentive for people to provide equipment for a very small amount of money albeit for a short amount of time. This is a good deal in comparison to what it would cost if no one was renting, and your only option was to buy. Renting gear, creates a direct relationship between money and time.

The good part of this is that human qualities such as talent, knowledge and skill multiply the value of the rental arrangment, benefiting both buyer and seller.

IBloom

 

[Bill Anderson]

ibloom (and most of you for that matter) it's strange that this "terrible dream called capitalism" should only apply to the rental price of the camera and not the purchase price. Hell, who wants to undermine capitalism, let's all suggest to Jannard that he should get with the program, the body alone should be 150k. Another poll?

 

[I Bloom]

ibloom (and most of you for that matter) it's strange that this "terrible dream called capitalism" should only apply to the rental price of the camera and not the purchase price. Hell, who wants to undermine capitalism, let's all suggest to Jannard that he should get with the program, the body alone should be 150k. Another poll?

Bill, what your saying is correct. If the RED ONE sold for say $150,000 just for the basics, the number of willing buyers would go way down, the stabalized rental price would go up. Over a long term a larger investment like this would also yield a larger returns. Hence the Varicam is still making money for people who bought it years ago. Jim would in some ways, be doing his committed customers a favor.

What is good about low priced gear is that its leveling the playing field a bit. If you are working in a bigger pool you have more competition, so RED owners will need to distinguish themselves more with talent and services.

In any case its like they say, if you have a problem with the rental price your solution is clear: Go buy it.

IBloom

 

[Russ McDonald]

ibloom (and most of you for that matter) it's strange that this "terrible dream called capitalism" should only apply to the rental price of the camera and not the purchase price. Hell, who wants to undermine capitalism, let's all suggest to Jannard that he should get with the program, the body alone should be 150k. Another poll?

Can not let it go...

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, and whatever you called what Hugo Chavez is doing. Are just mechanisms for dealing with the axiom of commerce. "The world is a free market." it has been since the first Caveman traded part of his hunt for a ember to start his own fire. It will always be a free market.

The only difference is were you are in the economic chain, places like Canada were just the government itself, not counting the natural flow of markets forces. Is a hugh hurdle. That's why in 2005 you were #9 on the GNP list, and we were #1. Why? Are Canadians not as smart, or as talented, or less innovative, do they lack desire?

The answer to that question is. Hell no!

I going to keep pounding this point. 4k is a entirely new set of ancillary markets to profit from, it maybe 10 years down the road. But it will happen. The producers Know it and so should you. A camera is a machine, it's just sculpture. Until someone with skill and experience wields it, thats why it's worth every penny Ian is going to charge you.

••• Notes for the test•••

USA #1 2005 12.9 trillion
Canada # 9 2005 1.05 trillion

 

[Nathan Buxton]

Ok, well some very good counter-points here. But many are still assuming i want the camera at $500 a day. Even i realize that is too low. I think for a camera and operator, $1500 a day would be fair! although as you say it depends totally on the project.

I don't make films as a business, but you guys seem to want to use this as a business. Clearly we are in two completely different arenas playing two different sports. Thats fine! As you guys say you WILL be able to get what you want for it from production companies who are DEAD SET on shooting on red.

The problem is everybody keeps saying "after the initial demand drops off." Well, I ask you, beyond major production companies who are willign to go out on a limb for the publicity of using a new technology, what large demand is there going to be?

In terms of the hollywood north (canada) film market, i doubt there will be even an ounce of initial demand for the red by people who could afford to pay the inflated initial rental prices. Basically it will be a stalemate: People unwilling to negotiate on prices; people unwilling to spring for a completely unheard of medium.

In the US market it may be very different, but i don't see ANY feature, tv series or MFTV movie being shot in vancouver with the red, it's just too rickity of a bridge to walk over at this point.

Therefore, the only demand for the red will be from low-budget indie producers who want waulity but at a significant savings over film OR OTHER DIGITAL MEDIAS! That's the key here. Red ONE isn't necessarily competing against other film formats, it's competing for that slightly lower end (compared to film) digital marketplace.

I'm all for capitalism, and all for people making money and servicing their equipment. But you have to realize, to CREATE initial demand you will have to get the camera out there and producing results for people to become willing to take the risk.

 

[Stephen Webb]

I think for a camera and operator, $1500 a day would be fair! although as you say it depends totally on the project.

What level of kit would you be expecting to get for that (out of interest)?

 

[Keith Nealy]

RED is a new paradigm

RED is a new paradigm

I don't make films as a business, but you guys seem to want to use this as a business..

This forum was started and supported by folks who make their living behind or with a camera. Don't you think we have some idea what we're doing?

Consider this simple fact. Making a 35mm film is very expensive because a good portion of that expense is film and processing.

Now consider, if you will, that RED proves out to be just as good "on the screen" as 35mm. For the sake of argument - they're equal.

Why would anyone (small asthetic considerations aside) want to willfull pay all that extra money for film and process when they don't have to?

And, if a company can own their own camera instead of renting a very expensive camera system, they have it available full time to develop their own creative content - which as we all know is where the real money is made.

RED is a no- brainer. And if you spend some time on these boards and listen to the wisdom that is available, you will begin to get it.

As far as rentals go, it should be based on VALUE - not original cost - WHY? Because for the near future you won't be able to buy one - AT ANY COST - Why? because you have to wait in line.

So, in effect, for a while, RED is priceless. If you want the benefits of RED - no film and processing costs (not to mention the dozens of other advantages) - you will have to pay a price based on VALUE - not a commodity-based standard based on readily available cameras.

IMHO, Owner/Ops who develop a bulletproof workflow with all the equipment will prevail in the rental field. Sure, rental houses will offer cheaper equipment but then are you going to have the skillset to know what to do with it? RED will be a different paradigm with a small group of people who have Mastered the art and science of RED, and they will be in demand because they will offer a production another level of "insurance".

And for all you indie filmmakers crying because RED rentals won't be dirt cheap initially, just wait a few years for the dust to settle. But better to make your movie now with a rental (which will still save you a boatload of money) before the indie rush of films that will glut the market driving prices and opportunities down.

They benefits of RED will come in stages. He who makes the investment early - assuming more of the risk - will reap more benefits.

And if none of this logic convinces you, then please go rent a Varicam or a Viper. Those companies will soon be needing you more than they know and they will probably cut you a good deal.

But I welcome you to read these pages and listen to the wisdom and learn where the real value is. You might be amazed at what you will find out about RED... and yourself.

Aloha,

Keith

 

[Nathan Buxton]

I'm not completely up-to-date with all the accessories. but i would expect the minimum for that: Batteries to power for the day, storage for the media all day (possibly purchased by the production, depending on how the "standard" workflow develops), evf and other essentials. Lenses, matteboxes, and special rigs is seperate.

See, the thing is, it's not impossible to pull favours. The red one will not be a common piece of equipment, thus it needs to be rented. All other things like tripods, lenses, monitors and the such can be borrowed from people.

I'm not into the standard 100-union-member-crew kind of film making. I'm into small private yet professional operations.



[edit]

and to comment on keith's reply:

Yes a lot of the cost of a film production is the processing and film itself. But who knows what kind of process is involved with red? I don't. I'm also not naive enough to believe the process will be as easy as a miniDV production. We aren't dealing with small amounts of data here. It will require massive amounts of computing power and man-hours to deliver the footage to an acceptable end-format. I don't forsee that being a cheap and easy process until months after red's arrival.

 

[I Bloom]

I don't make films as a business, but you guys seem to want to use this as a business.

Nathan, before I can take you seriously please answer these questions:

What does it take for someone to spend enough time on film sets shooting to become a skilled cameraman. How much time?

What do they end up giving up in order to do that?

What does it take to put together the $50,000 or more you need to have a solid camera package?

What else could you have done for your life with that money?

Also, can I borrow your car and drive it back and forth coast to coast?

And stranger can I stay at you place for free for a couple months?

Are you catching my drift?

IBloom

 

[Nathan Buxton]

Nathan, before I can take you seriously please answer these questions:

What does it take for someone to spend enough time on film sets shooting to become a skilled cameraman. How much time?

What do they end up giving up in order to do that?

What does it take to put together the $50,000 or more you need to have a solid camera package?

What else could you have done for your life with that money?

Also, can I borrow your car and drive it back and forth coast to coast?

And stranger can I stay at you place for free for a couple months?

Are you catching my drift?

IBloom

I'm not saying people shouldn't profit on their investments in their equipment and themselves.

I simply don't believe the profit will be as big as some people believe.

An investment in camera equipment is just like any other investment: risk is inherent to the process. Nobody should be spending 50,000+ on camera equipment EXPECTING to triple that investment in the first year... If they can GREAT, but it will be hard to do that right out of the starting gates.

What I am arguing for is not people working for free. I am asking people to consider the benefit of providing early productions with relatively cheap access to the medium while everybody (including the operator) are getting accustomed to the whole process. This way everyone benefits: Films are made without going bankrupt. The RED is proven to be a practical and beautiful medium. And then, after that point there WILL be high demand and everyone who invested early will have the opportunity to take advantage of it because they will be experienced with the format and already own the rig.

Before RED is worked into the market as a standardized or even mildly accepted format, profit shouldn't be the primary goal.

 

[Nathan Buxton]

Oh, and so that you will take me seriously:

"
Nathan, before I can take you seriously please answer these questions:

What does it take for someone to spend enough time on film sets shooting to become a skilled cameraman. How much time?
Exactly 512 hours, no more no less.
What do they end up giving up in order to do that?
Enormous amounts of their time, relationships with their families and their sanity.
What does it take to put together the $50,000 or more you need to have a solid camera package?
Hard work and dedication.
What else could you have done for your life with that money?
Bought a 1994 Porsche 911.
Also, can I borrow your car and drive it back and forth coast to coast?
If you promise not to crash it.
And stranger can I stay at you place for free for a couple months?
Absolutely! If you need to!
Are you catching my drift?
Yes.
IBloom "

 

[Keith Nealy]

This is show BUSINESS

This is show BUSINESS

Nathan Buxton wrote:

and to comment on keith's reply:

Yes a lot of the cost of a film production is the processing and film itself. But who knows what kind of process is involved with red? I don't.

But we do.

I'm also not naive enough to believe the process will be as easy as a miniDV production.

We know that.


We aren't dealing with small amounts of data here. It will require massive amounts of computing power and man-hours to deliver the footage to an acceptable end-format.

We know that too.

I don't forsee that being a cheap and easy process until months after red's arrival.

It seems we are in agreement. This is why those of us who have spent months and months on this board (investing valuable time and shared wisdom) will have this to offer the industry when RED makes it's appearance.

This is show BUSINESS. We all love creativity as much as you do (that's what we do we do) but we all have realized that it is a business ( that's why we're still here - "still crazy after all these years")

Aloha,

Keith

 

[I Bloom]

Before RED is worked into the market as a standardized or even mildly accepted format, profit shouldn't be the primary goal.

I don't think anyones motivation here is profit. We all want to make amazing images and improve the work that we are producing. That's why all these guys are so crazy about RED, they're not thinking about money, they are thinking about images dripping off the screen.

I also think most of us will end up shooting some 4K very cheaply for people we love or projects we think have higher value. Many will be looking for projects to show off what their gear early on... Production with great locations, production design and etc might be in an excellent negotiating position.

I don't think REDcode is going to have the same acceptance curve as other formats. Its not that much heavier than HDCAM. Specialized equiptment will not be neccessary to work with it, you don't need to buy a new expensive deck for example, just a beefy mac with Final Cut Pro. With effort the footage can be converted to any existing format with a noticable difference in quality (check the milk girls torrent).

I think many producers who want this quality are already convinced.

And, buy the way, having RED guys with paid off equipment is a good thing for independent filmmakers, because once they are in the black those guys have the ability to do whatever they want.

In any case. Who knows what will happen...we shall see.

IBloom

 

[Bill Anderson]

adobeone- It doesn't matter if it's 4k or a box of donuts, mate. Digital or film. Sure, because RED hasn't hit the street yet, you can ask whatever you want, but as soon as there are boxes sitting in the RED warehouse, you and your "I can ask for the sky because it's a 4k" theory are hooped.

What the equipment does or how it does it is completely irrelevant to rental prices; because what the equipment does when rented, it also does when purchased. Let me spell it out: it's a 4k when rented, and it's a 4k when purchased. Do the math.

Of course it's a free market, but that shouldn't deny intelligence or logic.

As you say, it's not the camera, but the one who wields it that dictates its efficacy- but that's hardly an original observation.

Likewise, there is no need to "keep pounding" what 4k means to markets, or the filmmaker for that matter, that's generally considered as fully understood around these parts.

So, the best you and your renter's aspirations can hope for is a backlog in RED's availability. Nice.

 

[Julian Banos]

Nathan,

I understand that you feel very passionate about your project, I trully know how that goes. I also get that you can only finace 100K for it. This a really limited budget for your film, and this is why you would want somebody to rent you a RED for $500 a day. I think your reasoning towards the people who are going to rent REDs is a little skewed by the passion for your project.

I would suggest that you take that enthusiasm and aim at 1. Getting more funding or 2. Convincing a RED renter that your project is worth cutting their prices and exchanging that for being involve in a good film and maybe points.

I think its pointless that you call us greedy. Negotiation is more persuasion and convincing than trying to establish price controls.

Who knows you may find a renter who is more of an independent producer (shares the same spirit as you do) than a camera rental person.

 

[I Bloom]

What else could you have done for your life with that money?
Bought a 1994 Porsche 911.

Sorry, you got this one wrong.
Possible correct answers would be:

The down payment on a place to live.

A college education for your kids.

And your other answers I find troubling because you had to cast it as something that was needed.

I think you are a good guy and I appreciate your perspective. Just remmember, a film project is not a need its a want.

I have seen some folks who forgot or didn't realize this make some terrible choices in their lives.

IBloom