who can do a price comparison?

[Leo Ticheli]

I cannot believe this question is being asked after all the experience we have with the costs of HD vs. Film.

Anyone who's produced on both film and HD will tell you that HD is far less expensive unless they have a motivation for admitting something other than the reality or they are incompetent at shooting with HD.

For any kind of stock intensive drama, including commercials, film cannot compete on the basis of price. Period. The only exception is a situation where an absolute minimum amount of stock is required. In my experience the difference in costs for commercial shooting is greater because the shooting ratios are much higher. Only Kubric shot more takes than a commercial director!

HD is not only less expensive, it's dramatically less expensive.

As far as archive costs go, I believe there has been reported a very biased and deliberate inflation of the actual costs of long term storage of digital material, the actual cost of which is falling precipitously and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The other advantages of shooting digital, WYSIWYG and immediate access to the footage, is profound. The argument that you can merely rehearse your scene until you get it right, then shoot, is naive at best. Actors are not robots; often the very first take is the very best, and sometimes it's take fifteen after extensive rehearsal. Magic happens when it will.

In spite of all this, film will be around for a long time; in the big budget feature world, the cost of stock is a tiny fraction of the total even if it seems like a big number. Many owners of film equipment which is long since paid for, will find shooting film a bearable cost.

Undoubtedly, however, the percentage of material acquired digitally will continue to grow.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

 

[Daniel Reichenbach]

Nice one Studiodrome!

I love shooting on something that has silver in it.

Like drinking Sake with gold flakes in it, or the American version: goldschlager.

If red considered adding a bit of gold to there sensor then we would be in business.

sorry for the silly comment... I am trying to get up to 100 posts

Hehehe, so I help you do go further... What did you meant exactly? Can you repeat ;-)

 

[Finner]

Finner--I would hope they would think we are a "classy outfit."

Torrey

Hi Torrey

My point in what I was saying is we all started somewhere and calling a entry level person in this industry a "bottom feeder" is an insult to every single working pro.

I feel I can do a better director/dp job then some and definately worse then others. Because of that I do not look down on or make fun of those beneath me and in turn do not wish to be treated that way by those above me.

Now there is a limit on this so I feel you can probably make a little fun of this pair.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AC0sR5_NTFo

 

[Bill Anderson]

VSTM10:
Unless you absolutely want the look of film- and by that I don't mean to imply a "better" look- then there are few (if any) compelling reasons to choose film; saving money included. And since you admit you're not technically inclined I'll save the trouble of listing the reasons ( I believe) for choosing digital over film; however, since there are more and more great filmmakers moving over to Digital: Here is what Sidney Lumet has to say about it ( "Sight And Sound" Feb 08- Volume 18- Issue 2) "I've been working in HD now for about five years. To me it's a godsend. Most directors get angry and impatient at the huge machine that working on film requires. Of course, there are a hundred years of glorious photography on film, but this [HD] is an advance, the next step forward. It has enormous advantages..... " and so on. Good luck with your project.

 

[Dj Joofa]

VSTM10:
since there are more and more great filmmakers moving over to Digital:

Bill, I think you are mixing digital processing with film processing. Filmmakers are moving over to digital for superior *post* processing which provides advantages over the notoriously little control they had earlier using analog color correction/print film/printer lights/saturation/contrast/push-pull processing and what not.

But to gain all advantages of digital processing you don't have to acquire the image digitally -- it can be shot on film and then processed to digital. The money issue is a separate debate, though.

 

[Thomas Koch]

I priced out a few days with Torrey, back when there were only 100 cameras in the marketplace and the price was the same. He was great to talk to, offered me full access to the camera for testing at their facility, but at the end of the day, it was priced too high to justify.

With 3000 cameras in the marketplace, (or even 1000) it will be even harder to justify. I commend them for believing in the product and coming up with a unique service and package to support.

It just happens to serve only a few select clients. For the rest of us, we can purchase our own, or hire an owner/op.

 

[Bill Anderson]

Joofa:
"Mixing film processing with digital processing" is not an easy thing to do.
No one says (let alone someone as seasoned as Lumet or Coppola) "I'm working in HD" and expresses their "impatience" with the film machinery, when they really mean "I'm shooting film and posting in Digital". Digital post for film is so common as to make mentioning the fact border on mundane. Besides, as was pointed out, Lumet goes on to mention the liability of working with film labs. And no, he didn't mean DI transfer film processing. Lumet: " [HD] has enormous advantages [over film]... greater depth of field... and you need less light..." For what that's worth, take it up with Lumet if you disagree.

 

[Dj Joofa]

Joofa:
For what that's worth, take it up with Lumet if you disagree.

Heavens forbid that I take it up with Lumet or Coppola -- that will be end of my career anywhere.

 

[Torrey Loomis]

Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory digital archiving solution at this time that I am aware of. Digital solutions are highly susceptible to the deterioration of the medium or obsolescence of the format.

I haven't seen any good solutions in this area so there's probably no point going head to head with film on this one.

MDO,

We use LTO-3 which has a 30-year shelf life.

We'll probably see some sort of holographic technology in the next 5-10 years that has a huge capacity and a 100-year shelf life.

So, using LTO-3 until we get to that magic medium seems pretty reasonable. Some more of my thought on workflow and digital archiving are here:

http://silverado.cc/shop/product.php?productid=997&cat=8&page=1

Torrey

 

[Torrey Loomis]

My point in what I was saying is we all started somewhere and calling a entry level person in this industry a "bottom feeder" is an insult to every single working pro.

I feel I can do a better director/dp job then some and definately worse then others. Because of that I do not look down on or make fun of those beneath me and in turn do not wish to be treated that way by those above me.

Hi Finner!

A few questions, and a comment.

1. Should an "entry level person" be using RED?

2. Shouldn't an "entry level person" use something that is simpler while they get their feet wet in the industry?

3. Should an "entry level person" be misled to think that--because they own a RED--their work will automatically look better than that done on something like an HVX200 or HDV camcorder? Or that its very straightforward to balance s-curves and gamma in REDCINE without some sort of prior experience?

4. Are you saying that "entry level people" are automatically working pro's? Your sentence lumped them together by saying I was addressing both groups.

My comments are this: I have seen some phenomenal work by amateurs who I would not consider bottom feeders. I have also worked with some "professionals" I would ABSOLUTELY consider bottom feeders--regardless of their time in the industry--because their attitude and work ethic simply betrayed it.

To me, it doesn't have a lot to do with your time in the industry, but rather your attitude towards your own worth. What are you worth?

I would appeal that the folks renting the cameras for very low prices are generally thinking that their acceptance of these low rates is offset by the "cool" factor of owning a RED ONE. However, I would submit that with 3000 cameras coming, the cool factor will wear off when people can't rent their cameras with the stock gear list anymore--no matter how low they price it.

The alternative is to offer value--which includes additional equipment that is different than anyone else, solid experience based on actual usage in the field AND in post, and the commitment to bend over backwards for the customer when an emergency arises.

We think that is worth more than commodity pricing. Its something I learned a long time ago from Michael Bravin at Band Pro, who (probably without even knowing to this day...) taught me a few lessons on value that I won't forget.

When there are 3000 cameras on the market, and 2700 of them are made up of the same production pack gear list, the other 300 will continue to derive excellent rentals because they are based on more than price.

Same thing with RED. If RED Digital Cinema were simply offering a product on price with no value attached, there would be a core group of people who still use it.

But I value the folks at RED way more than that because the value they offer in terms of knowledge, experience, research, as well as intangibles such as being really nice folks and working hard for the customer (me/you) is huge.

Based on their value, would I have purchased a RED ONE (or two...) from RED if everything from them had cost double--and still be as satisfied as I am today with the product?

Absolutely.

Torrey
-----------------------------------------------
Torrey Loomis
President & CEO - Silverado Systems, Inc.
Outfitter to the World's Foremost Apple Professionals
2600 East Bidwell Street, Suite 280
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 760-0032 • FAX (916) 404-5258
tloomis@silverado.cc
http://www.Silverado.cc

Check out our Insider blog at http://silveradosys.blogspot.com

 

[Rudi Herbert]

I cannot believe this question is being asked after all the experience we have with the costs of HD vs. Film.

Anyone who's produced on both film and HD will tell you that HD is far less expensive unless they have a motivation for admitting something other than the reality or they are incompetent at shooting with HD.

For any kind of stock intensive drama, including commercials, film cannot compete on the basis of price. Period. The only exception is a situation where an absolute minimum amount of stock is required. In my experience the difference in costs for commercial shooting is greater because the shooting ratios are much higher. Only Kubric shot more takes than a commercial director!

HD is not only less expensive, it's dramatically less expensive.

As far as archive costs go, I believe there has been reported a very biased and deliberate inflation of the actual costs of long term storage of digital material, the actual cost of which is falling precipitously and will probably continue to do so for the foreseeable future.

The other advantages of shooting digital, WYSIWYG and immediate access to the footage, is profound. The argument that you can merely rehearse your scene until you get it right, then shoot, is naive at best. Actors are not robots; often the very first take is the very best, and sometimes it's take fifteen after extensive rehearsal. Magic happens when it will.

In spite of all this, film will be around for a long time; in the big budget feature world, the cost of stock is a tiny fraction of the total even if it seems like a big number. Many owners of film equipment which is long since paid for, will find shooting film a bearable cost.

Undoubtedly, however, the percentage of material acquired digitally will continue to grow.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Amen!!!

 

[mikeburton]

Hi Finner!

A few questions, and a comment.

1. Should an "entry level person" be using RED?

2. Shouldn't an "entry level person" use something that is simpler while they get their feet wet in the industry?

3. Should an "entry level person" be misled to think that--because they own a RED--their work will automatically look better than that done on something like an HVX200 or HDV camcorder? Or that its very straightforward to balance s-curves and gamma in REDCINE without some sort of prior experience?

4. Are you saying that "entry level people" are automatically working pro's? Your sentence lumped them together by saying I was addressing both groups.

My comments are this: I have seen some phenomenal work by amateurs who I would not consider bottom feeders. I have also worked with some "professionals" I would ABSOLUTELY consider bottom feeders--regardless of their time in the industry--because their attitude and work ethic simply betrayed it.

To me, it doesn't have a lot to do with your time in the industry, but rather your attitude towards your own worth. What are you worth?

I would appeal that the folks renting the cameras for very low prices are generally thinking that their acceptance of these low rates is offset by the "cool" factor of owning a RED ONE. However, I would submit that with 3000 cameras coming, the cool factor will wear off when people can't rent their cameras with the stock gear list anymore--no matter how low they price it.

The alternative is to offer value--which includes additional equipment that is different than anyone else, solid experience based on actual usage in the field AND in post, and the commitment to bend over backwards for the customer when an emergency arises.

We think that is worth more than commodity pricing. Its something I learned a long time ago from Michael Bravin at Band Pro, who (probably without even knowing to this day...) taught me a few lessons on value that I won't forget.

When there are 3000 cameras on the market, and 2700 of them are made up of the same production pack gear list, the other 300 will continue to derive excellent rentals because they are based on more than price.

Same thing with RED. If RED Digital Cinema were simply offering a product on price with no value attached, there would be a core group of people who still use it.

But I value the folks at RED way more than that because the value they offer in terms of knowledge, experience, research, as well as intangibles such as being really nice folks and working hard for the customer (me/you) is huge.

Based on their value, would I have purchased a RED ONE (or two...) from RED if everything from them had cost double--and still be as satisfied as I am today with the product?

Absolutely.

Torrey
-----------------------------------------------
Torrey Loomis
President & CEO - Silverado Systems, Inc.
Outfitter to the World's Foremost Apple Professionals
2600 East Bidwell Street, Suite 280
Folsom, CA 95630
(916) 760-0032 • FAX (916) 404-5258
tloomis@silverado.cc
http://www.Silverado.cc

Check out our Insider blog at http://silveradosys.blogspot.com

Amen!!!!

 

[Jon Atack]

Nice post, Tobeorx.

-----

Finner et al: "Bottom feeding" just refers to the low-cost strategy of pricing at the bottom end of the market range, rather than competing with superior quality or premium service.

The fact of the matter is, clients who only look at price at the expense of service and other factors (maintenance, support, staff, etc.) are generally also far and away the most trouble and headache to deal with in addition to being the least profitable.

The top 20% of your customers generally provide about 80% of the revenues, so it can make real business sense to concentrate on providing excellent service primarily or exclusively to those customers. It is still important to price intelligently, but this appears to me to be the philosophy behind Silverado, and if done well to the extent that their superior service is perceived as such and valued by the best 20% of the clients, it can be one of the best strategies to follow.

Cheers.

 

[Craig Schober]

studio vs. independent

studio vs. independent

HD is not only less expensive, it's dramatically less expensive.

this statement seems true to some but not true to others because of perspective. to indy filmmakers, digital acquisition is a dream come true because stock, telecine and printing prices make up a big part of any low budget film.

but to studios, digital is much more of a headache than film. in the end, digital probably costs a little more than film because additional experts need to be hired and new (soon to be out of date) digital systems put in place. and why should they change? they have developed a workflow for the past 100 years that is profitable. why would they want to go digital to save a few bucks on something like film stock that accounts for only 1% of the total budget?

 

[Axel Mertes]

Wigby,

myself being a post production technical supervisor since over ten years, can NOT second you comment.

Shooting digital just replaces a whole part of the pipeline of

1. shooting film
2. developing film
3. doing telecine
4. offline editing the footage
5. doing scan based on EDL etc. on selected takes
6.-x. proceed with online post production (effects, compositing, grading, mastering)

Shooting digital means you actually jump from shooting into position 4 directly and having position 5 being an inhouse data conversion job, rather than an external scan job. The time and money this step 5 takes may be similarly quoted to the scan, depending on who you working with. Nowadays you get a 2K scan like 0.20 or less per frame, a 4K scan like 0.35 or less, so you have a scan cost of roughly 26,000.00 per 2K feature, roughly 45,500.00 per 4K feature as an undiscussed estimate (you clearly may get better or worse deals).

The transcoding of 4K REDCODE for the same amount of SELECTED data will be roughly like a week on an 8core system. I am sure you can rent at much lower rate than the actually scanning would cost you.

Bottom line:

No, if someone is telling you the "digital shooting" is more expensive in post, he/she is cheating you - definetly. I suspect that in that case the person in question has no idea of the digital shooting post production (yet) and wants to get a bit more from you for either own safety or for not knowing better, or simply to press out any profit possible.

I clearly don't ring the bell to see prices go down, but people should be fair to each other, thats it.

Cheers,
Axel

 

[HDPioneers.com]

$25,000 a month is a lot in my opinion. I know this is a shameless plug, but I have a complete package with lenses for $8,000/Month

 

[Craig Schober]

maybe we agree?

maybe we agree?

Wigby,

myself being a post production technical supervisor since over ten years, can NOT second you comment.

Shooting digital just replaces a whole part of the pipeline of

1. shooting film
2. developing film
3. doing telecine
4. offline editing the footage
5. doing scan based on EDL etc. on selected takes
6.-x. proceed with online post production (effects, compositing, grading, mastering)

Shooting digital means you actually jump from shooting into position 4 directly and having position 5 being an inhouse data conversion job, rather than an external scan job.

but i think we agree. shooting digital replaces the steps that cost the least to large productions.

1. costs the most because it's production
2. negligible cost for any major production
3. same
4. now you're spending more for the editing talent
5. negligible
6. again, you're using talented people's time and that costs

when compared with just the production step 1, all of these other steps combined are still much cheaper. so to a 100 million dollar feature, the digital advantage is negligible but to a small film, the cost of film stocks and processing and transfers start to eat into the meager production costs.

i don't work in the industry but i have made my own feature from top to bottom on super 16mm. i wish red (or any digital alternative) existed when i shot my film. it would have saved me about $20000 that i could have put towards a longer shooting schedule. now imagine a hollywood producer saying the same thing. i can't.

 

[Finner]

Hi Finner!

A few questions, and a comment.

1. Should an "entry level person" be using RED?

There are many degrees of "entry level". There are those that are entry level to a DVX, those that are entry level to higher end HD cameras and those that are entry level to 35mm and digital cinema. As far as I am concerned many no matter how much past experience with other systems a person has they will still be learning new things with a brand new camera like the red. So in some ways everyone who is just starting to shoot with red are learning and entry level in one aspect or another as far as this camera goes and I would be leery of anyone stating that they are an expert in all areas of red production and post with the camera being so new. I would have thought an established rental house would have an understanding of these basic things.

2. Shouldn't an "entry level person" use something that is simpler while they get their feet wet in the industry?

Please read explanation above to get a better understanding of how there are diverse camera systems and how a high level of experience at one system does not equate to being a highly experienced pro in another camera system. Not sure if you knew that the red camera is a fairly new system?

3. Should an "entry level person" be misled to think that--because they own a RED--their work will automatically look better than that done on something like an HVX200 or HDV camcorder? Or that its very straightforward to balance s-curves and gamma in REDCINE without some sort of prior experience?

It would be quite benificial for you to do some research before spouting off as I have stated exactly this point for many months now

4. Are you saying that "entry level people" are automatically working pro's? Your sentence lumped them together by saying I was addressing both groups.

I am not sure how to make it any easier for you to understand that everyone no matter who they are started somewhere. Calling people bottom feeders is nothing short of condescending and an insult to all. As I mentioned we all started somewhere.

To me, it doesn't have a lot to do with your time in the industry, but rather your attitude towards your own worth. What are you worth?

It appears to me that you think so highly of yourself that you can openly throw out insults to potential clients and completely gouge the current ones you have.

I would appeal that the folks renting the cameras for very low prices are generally thinking that their acceptance of these low rates is offset by the "cool" factor of owning a RED ONE. However, I would submit that with 3000 cameras coming, the cool factor will wear off when people can't rent their cameras with the stock gear list anymore--no matter how low they price it.

Sure there are those that will rent their cameras to low that should be asking more and they are a detriment to the industry. However there are also companies that will way overcharge for there red systems and they are no less of a detriment, it is quite clear where silverado sits on that graph.

The alternative is to offer value--which includes additional equipment that is different than anyone else, solid experience based on actual usage in the field AND in post, and the commitment to bend over backwards for the customer when an emergency arises.

Oh I see some "bending over", I would not say backwards however . As clearly "bending over" will be taking place by your customers as they are getting raped $24,000 a month to rent the camera from you. With that level of sodomy I doubt your customers are able to walk properly for quite some time afterwards. Speaking of your customers, I went on your camera's availability list's on your webstite and shockingly enough neither camera has a single day booked for the next 6 months. I'm sure that has nothing to do with your pricing though.

 

[Torrey Loomis]

...I would be leery of anyone stating that they are an expert in all areas of red production and post with the camera being so new...an established rental house would have an understanding of these basic things.

Not sure if you knew that the red camera is a fairly new system? It would be quite benificial for you to do some research before spouting off as I have stated exactly this point for many months now

I am not sure how to make it any easier for you to understand...calling people bottom feeders is nothing short of condescending and an insult to all.

It appears to me that you think so highly of yourself that you can openly throw out insults to potential clients and completely gouge the current ones you have...there are also companies that will way overcharge for there red systems and they are no less of a detriment, it is quite clear where Silverado sits on that graph.

Oh I see some "bending over" clearly "bending over" will be taking place by your customers as they are getting raped $24,000 a month to rent the camera from you. With that level of sodomy I doubt your customers are able to walk properly for quite some time afterwards...

Finner,

I am going to print this out and frame it on my wall. This is just awesome.

Torrey

 

[Finner]

Finner,

I am going to print this out and frame it on my wall. This is just awesome.

Torrey

Torrey

Hey man just being able to give you a helping hand is thanks enough.

Finner