Mark Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Yes but we're in a different world now (or we will be when Jannard is able to crank up his production line to meet all his orders!) Video cameras in general don't wear out or need anywhere near as much maintenance as film cameras. Up until now, the most problematic part of a camcorder (of any sort) has always been the tape deck. If you have a HD camera like the RED with essentially no moving parts, and the ability to take whatever cine lens sets you own or have access to, you're talking about a totally different ball game. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Storing video on tapes is still the best way to archive footage. ---------------------------------------------------------- If a RED cost the same as a fully kitted 435 or Arricam, well yes, most people would be happy to continue renting. But it's not anywhere near the price of one of those! And I'm sure that any pro cinematographer worth his or her salt would soon be able to earn enough on the side using a RED to pay back the purchase cost, and get some real-word experience at the same time. ---------------------------------------------------------- Why are you comparing a video camera to a Film camera? --------------------------------------------------------- Plus you don't have to pay for film or processing while you're getting up to speed. ------------------------------------------------------------- No but then your making a video not a 35mm film? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) I don't think you can use life expectancy as an argument, because the film cameras have a proven advantage over video cameras. How long RED's hard drives last with hard use is a question that remains to be answered in the future. Experience with old Betacam SP cameras seem to suggest that parts other than the tape end do fail. Deciding on the purchase of a RED will depend on the market you're working in and if you can make a return on the investment. The cost is too high to just buy a RED because it would be good to be able to shoot the odd stock shot. You might consider that argument with a prosumer camera, but would you go out and buy say a DSR 450 or SDX 900 on that basis? Edited May 9, 2007 by Brian Drysdale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Oshiro Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 --------------------------------------------------------------------Storing video on tapes is still the best way to archive footage. ---------------------------------------------------------- Why are you comparing a video camera to a Film camera? --------------------------------------------------------- Plus you don't have to pay for film or processing while you're getting up to speed. ------------------------------------------------------------- No but then your making a video not a 35mm film? Whatever, Mark! You get his point anyway, right? Why do you persist in BODDINGTON-IZING every single post? Yes, 35mm film looks great! Your opinions have been stated, "film is better." Okay! You win! It does! Why do you even keep posting in the RED forum if you have no interest in RED? Actually, I think Richard no longer even merits his "BOTTINGTON" moniker anyway! Maybe I should just call these posts "WILLIAMS'" from now on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 I don't think you can use life expectancy as an argument, because the film cameras have a proven advantage over video cameras. --------------------------------------------------------- Well I wasn't actually. Just simply answering the statement that tapeless is better which it isn't at this time ---------------------------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Oshiro Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Deciding on the purchase of a RED will depend on the market you're working in and if you can make a return on the investment. The cost is too high to just buy a RED because it would be good to be able to shoot the odd stock shot. You might consider that argument with a prosumer camera, but would you go out and buy say a DSR 450 or SDX 900 on that basis? Uhhh, yeah, I would. In fact, I JUST bought a DSR450 a year ago because I didn't believe RED would actually deliver! And I didn't buy the DSR450 to make money--I bought it to make short "films." Besides, I don't give a crap about my ROI on my RED. You see, some of us are on completely different paths. This is not a, "Let me 'invest' in an F900 so I can get more high-end clients" decision. This is a, "I already have a day job in production shooting other people's stuff, so lemme buy the best filmmaker's camera that $17.5K can buy so I can shoot my own stuff" kinda decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted May 9, 2007 Author Share Posted May 9, 2007 I don't think you can use life expectancy as an argument, because the film cameras have a proven advantage over video cameras. You're confusing product lifetime with reliability. There's no question that you can shoot just as good a picture with a 1930s Mitchell as you can with a Arricam, provided it's well maintained. And film cameras require a lot of maintenance, which is the main reason people prefer to rent. A video camera with flash memory would have no moving parts, and these days Hard Drives are extremely reliable. In fact most computer Hard Drives these days get replaced with something bigger long before they wear out, and the same would apply to the RED's hard drives. Film cameras were specifically designed to be reconditioned an indefinite number of times, which is in total contrast to most of the video cameras that have been available up to now. Jannard has specifically stated that RED is designed to be continuously upgrade-able. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Whatever, Mark! You get his point anyway, right? Why do you persist in BODDINGTON-IZING every single post? Yes, 35mm film looks great! Your opinions have been stated, "film is better." Okay! You win! It does! Why do you even keep posting in the RED forum if you have no interest in RED? Actually, I think Richard no longer even merits his "BOTTINGTON" moniker anyway! Maybe I should just call these posts "WILLIAMS'" from now on? This is a forum where we discuss stuff and why do you think I have no interest in the red? As for my post if you think I'm wrong then show me where? To try and undermine my character is not debate or discussion its certainly not my intent to flame or to take sides its just to uncover what is true and what isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Oshiro Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) This is a forum where we discuss stuff and why do you think I have no interest in the red? As for my post if you think I'm wrong then show me where? To try and undermine my character is not debate or discussion its certainly not my intent to flame or to take sides its just to uncover what is true and what isn't. Okay. Truce. Let's try this again tomorrow. Gotta try and get some sleep now! Edited May 9, 2007 by Ralph Oshiro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Uhhh, yeah, I would. In fact, I JUST bought a DSR450 a year ago because I didn't believe RED would actually deliver! And I didn't buy the DSR450 to make money--I bought it to make short "films." Besides, I don't give a crap about my ROI on my RED. You see, some of us are on completely different paths. This is not a, "Let me 'invest' in an F900 so I can get more high-end clients" decision. This is a, "I already have a day job in production shooting other people's stuff, so lemme buy the best filmmaker's camera that $17.5K can buy so I can shoot my own stuff" kinda decision. Hmmm... I think I'd rather spend the money on the actual film's production values rather than the gear to make the short films. Also, most people couldn't justify buying a camera like the DSR 450 just to do that, it would be a lot cheaper for them to rent and they don't have their personal capital tied up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 (edited) Okay Red I'm a potential customer I dont have loyalty to film or video in fact the only loyalty is to me. NOW I have a dream that dream is to make a feature film. All doors are closed to me because the system is. SO I have to go it alone and I'm looking at all the options. I.E. Maybe I can get a grant or write a script. Maybe I can find like minded people or make a trailer to sell my idea. So to get things rolling I need to learn as much about film production as I can. I buy second hand gear from ebay and slowly build up kit that I can learn from, practice with and make films. However I'm still not able to complete my ambition. I need cheap kit that gives professional results. Kit I can make mistakes with. Practice makes perfect. Along comes the Red camera. At first glance it looks like a one stop, top down, do all, cheap PROFESSIONAL camera. I save hard give everything to get this camera BUT I can't make HD films, too expensive. I can go to a lesser format but where is the advantage? I could be satisfied that I have a camera that if everything else were in place then I could make a feature. Only if that were the case I could hire a camera at that point or be in a position budget wise to afford what I need. This is how I'm seeing it I just can't see anywhere in the chain the red fits in not with my needs or anyone elses? Don't have a go at me because I am not saying what you want to hear. Instead convince me show me where the need is? After all I am just one of Millions who may be purchasers? Edited May 9, 2007 by Mark Williams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 9, 2007 You're confusing product lifetime with reliability.There's no question that you can shoot just as good a picture with a 1930s Mitchell as you can with a Arricam, provided it's well maintained. And film cameras require a lot of maintenance, which is the main reason people prefer to rent. Hi, Not sure I agree that a Mitchell needs much maintenance at all. I often use #749 from 1944, the last time it went into a repair shop was 1999. I have oiled the camera every day & greased the camera from time to time but that's it. I think that abused rental equipment requires a lot of maintenance. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 9, 2007 Maybe I should just call these posts "WILLIAMS'" from now on? Hi Ralph, 'WILLIAMS' is also the name of the moderator here! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 To me this is also like buying $ 17,500 ++ worth of a new film stock that I haven't had a chance to shoot ! "Peter Jackson likes it is not enough testimonial for me, nor are QT's on the web; I suppose seeing the NAB demo might have helped but even then.....) I know the 'take it where you need to in post' argument for digital but there ARE limitations there - not that I have much hope those limitations as they relate to the assests (which I probably can't deny) can be seriously discussed on any of the online forums, unfortunately.... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Hi, Not sure I agree that a Mitchell needs much maintenance at all. I often use #749 from 1944, the last time it went into a repair shop was 1999. I have oiled the camera every day & greased the camera from time to time but that's it. I think that abused rental equipment requires a lot of maintenance. Stephen I was going to let it go, but I know someone who bought a 10 year old Aaton 7 from the BBC which had the usual heavy use from their crews and he used it for years on various productions. I've also seen 10 year BBC Betacam SP cameras, which were always in and out of maintenance and were extremely unreliable at the end of their working lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Joyce Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 You're confusing product lifetime with reliability.There's no question that you can shoot just as good a picture with a 1930s Mitchell as you can with a Arricam, provided it's well maintained. And film cameras require a lot of maintenance, which is the main reason people prefer to rent. A video camera with flash memory would have no moving parts, and these days Hard Drives are extremely reliable. In fact most computer Hard Drives these days get replaced with something bigger long before they wear out, and the same would apply to the RED's hard drives. Film cameras were specifically designed to be reconditioned an indefinite number of times, which is in total contrast to most of the video cameras that have been available up to now. Jannard has specifically stated that RED is designed to be continuously upgrade-able. I'm not so sure electronics are all that reliable. Hard drives(not solid state memory) have lots of moving parts and are very prone to shock. The risk of disk failure increases and the speed decreases as they start reaching their capacity. One of the ports on the side of the camera could easily just stop functioning. That's just what has happened to one of the usb ports on the Macbook pro I'm typing on now and it's only 3 months old. Electronics and mechanics each have their own pro's and con's. Producing 1 camera that works and producing 3000 that work are two different things no matter if it's mechanical or electronic. We won't really know much about the build quality of this camera until it has been tested in all sorts of situations over some period of time. I just hope they didn't spend all that money on a sensor and cheaped out on the other components :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Oshiro Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 This is how I'm seeing it I just can't see anywhere in the chain the red fits in not with my needs or anyone elses? Don't have a go at me because I am not saying what you want to hear. Instead convince me show me where the need is? After all I am just one of Millions who may be purchasers? Hey, I just visited your website and watched one of your trailers. What did you shoot your shorts with? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Williams Posted May 9, 2007 Share Posted May 9, 2007 Hey, I just visited your website and watched one of your trailers. What did you shoot your shorts with? I shot them with a canon GL2/XM2.. de-interlaced with MB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted May 9, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 9, 2007 Why wouldn't any well-off cinematographer want to buy a RED? This is a brand new situation. If you are up for a job, and the producer says "Carl, we want you, but we have two other bids that are several hundred dollars lower per day than yours...." It's possible that the people bidding lower are someone with a smidgeon of experience compared to yours, but they also own a red camera, and they will do the shoot for a lot less... At what point do you finally cave and take the job at a much lower rate because of what amounts to a "faux" competitive bid? Red will probably be a good thing, but once the market saturates a bit with Red cameras, it will probably drive down the DP's day rate while possibily creating more work situations overall, so as so many things in life tend to be, it will be a trade off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 If you are up for a job, and the producer says "Carl, we want you, but we have two other bids that are several hundred dollars lower per day than yours...." It's possible that the people bidding lower are someone with a smidgeon of experience compared to yours, but they also own a red camera, and they will do the shoot for a lot less... At what point do you finally cave and take the job at a much lower rate because of what amounts to a "faux" competitive bid? Red will probably be a good thing, but once the market saturates a bit with Red cameras, it will probably drive down the DP's day rate while possibily creating more work situations overall, so as so many things in life tend to be, it will be a trade off. You think any producer is going to hire a guy because he has the Red and he's a feel bucks cheaper... I'm going to hire a guy or gal because they're good... they're easy to work with... they share the same vision for the final product as I do... not because they own a Red... I tell you what... I'll see if I can borrow someone's Arri 35mm package and I'll give you a better rate than your Red... but you'd be crazy to hire me because I'm a producer who's moving over to directing... I'm not a dp... but hey you got film camera... for a few bucks cheaper... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralph Oshiro Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 To me this is also like buying $ 17,500 ++ worth of a new film stock that I haven't had a chance to shoot! Not sure what your point was. You could only expose that film once! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted May 10, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 10, 2007 Not sure what your point was. You could only expose that film once! Hi Ralph, I know I spend far more on Digital still cameras than I ever did on film & processing. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Alessandro Machi Posted May 10, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted May 10, 2007 You think any producer is going to hire a guy because he has the Red and he's a feel bucks cheaper... I'm going to hire a guy or gal because they're good... they're easy to work with... they share the same vision for the final product as I do... not because they own a Red... The producer is just trying to shave the rate. They may just be bluffing, but now at least, they won't be lying when they make their claim that they have lower day rate offers, it will be the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Brighton Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 If you are up for a job, and the producer says "Carl, we want you, but we have two other bids that are several hundred dollars lower per day than yours...." It's possible that the people bidding lower are someone with a smidgeon of experience compared to yours, but they also own a red camera, and they will do the shoot for a lot less... Yes, but for most jobs it's the same old story; the bill for camera, film and the people you need to operate it is minute compared to the cost of everything else. Also, people like me, apart the fact that we know our jobs, usually have a van full of all sorts of good bits and pieces, like heavy duty cables, spare batteries, video leads, odds and sods of video connectors, gaffer tape, hand tools, a soldering iron, anything we can think of that might just save save the day one day. I even carry an assortment of washed potato sacks; you'd be amazed at how useful they can be. I get regular work, because people know that if I'm on the set, chances are better that everything will go right, than if I'm not on the set. Nobody is going to hire some totally inexperienced prat just because he happens to own a RED. That's just Reduser dreamland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexander Joyce Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 If a RED cost the same as a fully kitted 435 or Arricam, well yes, most people would be happy to continue renting. But it's not anywhere near the price of one of those! And I'm sure that any pro cinematographer worth his or her salt would soon be able to earn enough on the side using a RED to pay back the purchase cost, and get some real-word experience at the same time. I'm sure most DP's renting kit today would continue renting kit even after the Red is out. Most would probably find better things to spend $20-40K on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Häakon Posted May 11, 2007 Share Posted May 11, 2007 Hi Ralph, I know I spend far more on Digital still cameras than I ever did on film & processing. Stephen Hi Stephen, I think you would be hard pressed to find many professional (still) shooters that would echo that sentiment. The same will hold true for digital (motion) capture not too far down the road. Häakon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts