RED production schedule

[Ralph Oshiro]

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 . . ."

That producer is the kind most of us would stay very far away from. You know the type . . . you can spot 'em a mile away.

 

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?

Answer: NEVER.

 

Plus, an inexperienced RED owner would never get anywhere near the crew list of a high-end musicvideo, commercial, or feature shoot. People in those circles are pretty goddamned picky about who they hire as their DPs. They may, however, hire an inexperienced RED owner as a digital asset manager (clapper/loader kinda guy), which is a totally legitimate place to start.

Edited May 11, 2007 by Ralph Oshiro

[Stephen Williams]

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

 

Hi Häakon,

 

The Kodak DCS range cost about $15,000 at launch for 2 MP (?), the large format backs cost more than that today, I would not be so sure!

 

Clearly any Pro buying D80 & working every day will save money today.

 

As you know I own several film cameras, I have never paid for film, processing or telecine myself, production always pay direct as I would mark up the cost.

 

Stephen

[Ralph Oshiro]

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.

Well, I guess I'm not "most people" then. Plus, one of the reasons I bought the DSR450 was because no one rents those damned things! All you can rent in this town (Hollywood) at that time, in that class of camera, were SDX900s. They were then about $550/day to rent, and then I'd still need a stupid $20,000 deck to ingest the footage into my NLE. With the DSR450, I can ingest using any cheap DV camcorder via Firewire into my NLE. The 2/3" image from my DSR450 is virtually noise-free and very pretty. I prefer my DSR450's SD image over any 1/3" HD/HDV camera's image I've seen.

[Francis Kuhn]

Hi Stephen,

 

I think you would be hard pressed to find many professional (still) shooters that would echo that sentiment.

 

Häakon

 

Hi Haakon,

 

In the four years since I've started offering digital still capture (in addition to shooting film) I've found that digital is usually considerably more expensive than film. The cost of postproduction days alone eats up more than the cost of film and processing. Typically, it's a 1:1 ratio: one post day for each shoot day. Digital camera rentals (2-3 times more than film cameras), computer rentals ($600 a day x 2 workstations), digital processing (a DIT up all night in the motor home converting/backing up files), storage (500GB or more on a week-long job) and other asset-management related costs are beginning to worry clients who thought digital would actually reduce the amount spent on shoots. The $750-a-day rental fee for some of the medium format still-camera backs (if you can even get them) would cover an entire Mamiya RZ67 or Fuji GX680 system for a week. And, of course, you have to bring a second one for back up.

 

Crazy as it sounds, a few clients are actually going back to film, some because they don't like the look of digital, others because film is simply easier to deal with post-shoot, or both.

 

-Fran

 

BTW, one of my assistants just returned from a huge, eight day fashion shoot for a very high profile client. I was surprised when he told me it was an all-film shoot (Kodak color negative film). After a year of digital, they have informed photographers who bid on future work that they must now shoot on medium-format film.

[Brian Drysdale]

Well, I guess I'm not "most people" then. Plus, one of the reasons I bought the DSR450 was because no one rents those damned things! All you can rent in this town (Hollywood) at that time, in that class of camera, were SDX900s. They were then about $550/day to rent, and then I'd still need a stupid $20,000 deck to ingest the footage into my NLE. With the DSR450, I can ingest using any cheap DV camcorder via Firewire into my NLE. The 2/3" image from my DSR450 is virtually noise-free and very pretty. I prefer my DSR450's SD image over any 1/3" HD/HDV camera's image I've seen.

 

It's a personal decision. Other people buy Hasselblad cameras.

 

I'd rather rent, I've had experience of selling under used gear to finish my own films in the past, so I tend not to get too bothered about actually owning everything.

 

When I've shot with the SDX 900, the editor hired in the VTR for the day when he was inputting the rushes (This quite common unless they can justify the cost of buying a VTR for a particular format). However, the SDX 900, at the 50Mb/s setting, is perhaps closer to the Digibeta than the DVCAM format DSR 450.

[Stephen Williams]

BTW, one of my assistants just returned from a huge, eight day fashion shoot for a very high profile client. I was surprised when he told me it was an all-film shoot (Kodak color negative film). After a year of digital, they have informed photographers who bid on future work that they must now shoot on medium-format film.

 

Hi Fran,

 

I have some clients who think the same way. The cost of production is a very small cost of the advertising budget in any case.

 

Stephen

[Francis Kuhn]

Hi Fran,

 

I have some clients who think the same way. The cost of production is a very small cost of the advertising budget in any case.

 

Stephen

 

Funny how everyone thought digital would make things cheaper. And better.

 

I have three Canon 1DS MKII camera bodies that are about 15 months old. At $8200 each, they will have to be retired in a few months when the next big thing comes along from Canon. The big camera stores' rental departments are reluctant to purchase the new generation of 45 MP digital camera backs at $40K each because they will only have a 18-20 month window to recoup their investment before whatever is next comes along. Samys in L.A. has only a few, and those are almost never available. My new Dual-Core Mac Pros purchased in October have already been shoved aside by the 8-Core model. Shoots now require a video village and digital assistant to be hauled into remote locations (and a dedicated digital support vehicle as well).

 

On the agency side, there are now full-time employees (and related hardware/software) needed to manage digital assets. They worry constantly about future irretrievability and the duplication of terabytes of information which will have to be performed at regular intervals. Film assets, on the other hand, are easily managed by an art director using archival storage sleeves in three-ring binders filed on a shelf in the storage room.

 

All of these costs are passed on to the clients who, for some reason, thought film was the enemy and digital was virtually free.

 

I love digital for certain things because it has helped me get a shot in difficult lighting situations. The digital genie is out of the bottle and won't be going back, but I think people forget how great film really is. On top of that, it's amazing how the all-film shoots have suddenly become more prestigious!

 

 

Anyway, sorry to get so far off topic.

 

-Fran

[Alexander Joyce]

I have three Canon 1DS MKII camera bodies that are about 15 months old. At $8200 each, they will have to be retired in a few months when the next big thing comes along from Canon. The big camera stores' rental departments are reluctant to purchase the new generation of 45 MP digital camera backs at $40K each because they will only have a 18-20 month window to recoup their investment before whatever is next comes along.

 

Well ofcourse they know this and they make sure that you won't have to make that whole investment once again. Just had an old H2D upgraded to an H3D. I doubt if Nikon or Canon would be as forthcoming when it comes to replacing the cameras.

Same goes for motion picture cameras. What happens to a $17,500 camera and what happens to a $100,000 camera when it reaches end of life.

Still one just can't beat the old film backs. A film camera will have give you a return no digital camera will ever even come close to.

 

On top of that, it's amazing how the all-film shoots have suddenly become more prestigious!

 

Well there's been a surge in Super 16 also. I spoke to a few rental houses and they were saying their 416's are constantly out.

I also find myself shooting more and more stills on the old Hasselblad's instead of the new one. Actually so much that I'm again thinking of investing in a new Flextight scanner to replace the trusty old Nikon 8000.

[Michael Peploe]

Great post Fran. So true.

 

Mr. Jannard has stated, I'm sure subject to change, that there will be a sensor upgrade possibly every 2 years and firmware is user upgradeable. Unlike other digital devices he has made sure that obsolesence will not be an issue and in fact is used in their marketing. Seems he knows what gripes most of us have.

[Guest]

Hi Fran,

 

I have some clients who think the same way. The cost of production is a very small cost of the advertising budget in any case.

 

Stephen

 

Yeah the cost to air the spot will be a whole lot more!

 

And yes, film shoots have suddenly become a lot more "prestigous" that is for sure. Lots of people have video experience on their resumes, so they clamour for any opportunity to be associated with film.

 

R,

[Francis Kuhn]

Yeah the cost to air the spot will be a whole lot more!

 

And yes, film shoots have suddenly become a lot more "prestigous" that is for sure. Lots of people have video experience on their resumes, so they clamour for any opportunity to be associated with film.

 

R,

 

Hi Richard,

 

We are far enough into the digital age that I've encountered young agency art directors who have never actually been on a real film shoot (still or motion). In particular, it's amazing how quickly the digital takeover has been in the stills world. Of course, some of these young ADs speak in reverential tones about how much they'd like to actually have a chance to do a true film shoot. It's what I like to call the Art Director's Club Effect: ADs want to be different so they can have a better story to tell when they get together with all the other ADs at the monthly Art Directors' Club meeting. "Oh, you shot with the new Leaf Back? Wow. How exciting. By the way, did I mention how great the film from my last shoot looked?"

 

What a strange world we work in.

 

Anyway, more On-Topic: I read some news over at REDuser about a possible delay in production. I'm impressed that Mr. Jannard and Co. are keeping the reservation holders up to speed regarding the delay. Seems like they've done a great job of keeping the information flowing in both directions. Hopefully the hold-up will be a short one since I'm sure there's a race on down at the Art Directors' Club to see who can tell the first RED shoot story. :rolleyes:

 

-Fran

[Michael Peploe]

BTW, one of my assistants just returned from a huge, eight day fashion shoot for a very high profile client. I was surprised when he told me it was an all-film shoot (Kodak color negative film). After a year of digital, they have informed photographers who bid on future work that they must now shoot on medium-format film.

 

 

I just did a shoot for a mobile device with a big star and they aslo did a photo shoot at the same time. Talking with the photographers assistant he told me that a study was done where they showed digital images and film images to a group of people off the street asking them to pick which ones they liked without telling them which ones were digital or film. Almost all of the group picked the film shots as the ones they liked. Advertising companies will take any advantage they can get to get their products noticed and thats one of the reasons film is still being asked for.

[Häakon]

Funny how everyone thought digital would make things cheaper. And better.

 

I have three Canon 1DS MKII camera bodies that are about 15 months old. At $8200 each, they will have to be retired in a few months when the next big thing comes along from Canon. My new Dual-Core Mac Pros purchased in October have already been shoved aside by the 8-Core model.

Hi Fran,

 

I appreciate your contributions but I do feel you are exaggerating things a bit. You're saying that in a few months, your 1DS MKIIs will be completely useless? That a Dual-Core Mac Pro is now incapable of dealing with your still photos simply because a newer model is out? Surely that's not the case. Maybe we'd all like to be using the most current, cutting-edge technology, but it's certainly not necessary to stay on top of the game. In fact, having even a mediocre tool and a good deal of talent will trump an amateur with the "latest gear" any day.

 

I work mostly in the world of motion picture, but I have a great friend who's an established shooter in the still industry and continues to shoot much of his commercial portfolio on a 5-year old Canon EOS-1Ds. The very same camera that paid for itself the first month of its use. Of course there are archival costs (as there are with anything else), but those costs really are minor in the grand scheme of things. You can get a terabyte's worth of data now for under $400 that will hold several millions of photos (even in the native RAW state) - all in a drive smaller than just one of the three-ring binders you store film assets with. And we won't even go into the significant advatanges of the workflow and time savings that digital provides.

 

There certainly continue to be legit reasons to shoot film - mostly aesthetic (and even that is a very subjective arena) - but I would say that on the whole, the "digital has made things cheaper and better" argument does hold up. I think that's exactly the foundation that RED is continuing to build upon, just in a new industry. I can also certainly understand why this change (and the slow, yet steady shift to digital in general) threatens the status quo of traditional filmmaking, and why there are many people uneasy with it. Change always brings about this reaction. As you've said, however, the digital genie is out of the bottle; choosing to deny it merely closes a (rather large) door of opportunity.

[Ralph Oshiro]

While I'm sure all of still guys' anecdotes here are true, the reality is that out of the last hundred or so still shoots I've been on (I shoot a lot of BTS stuff), I only recall seeing one or two photographers shooting film (medium format). The bulk of these shoots were of celebrities for national magazine covers, and some major-artist record label stuff.

[Stephen Williams]

While I'm sure all of still guys' anecdotes here are true, the reality is that out of the last hundred or so still shoots I've been on (I shoot a lot of BTS stuff), I only recall seeing one or two photographers shooting film (medium format). The bulk of these shoots were of celebrities for national magazine covers, and some major-artist record label stuff.

 

Hi Ralph,

 

I was involved with a high profile shoot where the still's photographer was making $50,000 per shot (Buy Out), over the 2 days he made $200,000. The photographer had no interest in shooting with a digital camera instead of his large format plate camera. I wonder why!

 

Stephen

[Ralph Oshiro]

Other people buy Hasselblad cameras.

Not the same. You could buy a Mamiya 6x7 camera and get the benefit of the larger format for less money. Tiny 1/3"-imagers just weren't doing it for me--I chose the cheapest 2/3" 24p solution available at the time.

 

I'd rather rent, I've had experience of selling under used gear to finish my own films in the past, so I tend not to get too bothered about actually owning everything.

Like I said, no one really rents DSR450s, and SDX900s rented for $550/day at the time.

 

When I've shot with the SDX 900, the editor hired in the VTR for the day when he was inputting the rushes (This quite common unless they can justify the cost of buying a VTR for a particular format).

Right, but who was paying for your editor and VTR rental? I bought the DSR450 to make short films that I edit myself on a desktop NLE without needing to rent an expensive VTR.

 

However, the SDX 900, at the 50Mb/s setting, is perhaps closer to the Digibeta than the DVCAM format DSR 450.

True, the SDX900 has double the datarate, and higher chroma subsampling than DVCAM. But I dare the casual observer to tell the difference between well-lit, well-shot footage from a DSR450, and similar footage from an SDX900, without blowing up individual frames in Photoshop. And even if they could, in my opinion, it's not a $10K plus $20K VTR kinda difference. My DSR450 was $12K (after $3,000 Sony cash rebate), out the door, with case, bricks, charger, and glass. Many others have spent about as much (including accessories) on their Panasonic HVX200/JVC HD250/Canon H1 packages.

[Ralph Oshiro]

Hi Ralph,

 

I was involved with a high profile shoot where the still's photographer was making $50,000 per shot (Buy Out), over the 2 days he made $200,000. The photographer had no interest in shooting with a digital camera instead of his large format plate camera. I wonder why!

 

Stephen

Hey Stephen! Yup, I know those guys exist! I was just talking to a still guy that makes $20K/day--I thought that was a lot. What was he shooting, 8x10?

[Ralph Oshiro]

Anyway, more On-Topic: I read some news over at REDuser about a possible delay in production. I'm impressed that Mr. Jannard and Co. are keeping the reservation holders up to speed regarding the delay. Seems like they've done a great job of keeping the information flowing in both directions. Hopefully the hold-up will be a short one since I'm sure there's a race on down at the Art Directors' Club to see who can tell the first RED shoot story.

Can't wait to hear those stories as well! My apologies to the forum for contributing to steering this thread waaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy off-topic!

[Stephen Williams]

Hey Stephen! Yup, I know those guys exist! I was just talking to a still guy that makes $20K/day--I thought that was a lot. What was he shooting, 8x10?

 

Hi Ralph,

 

4x5 he was a cheapskate & his crew were unpaid!

 

Stephen

[Ralph Oshiro]

Hi Ralph,

 

4x5 he was a cheapskate & his crew were unpaid!

 

Stephen

Hey! What's the deal with THAT! Hey! I forgot, I'm a photographer, too! I have an Elle Magazine photo credit that I shot of Miss Bora Bora with my D70 and a 180mm f/2.8. Also, Time Magazine ran a video frame grab from an SDX900 shoot that I lit and operated! (Does that count?) Woo hoo!

[Sam Wells]

There certainly continue to be legit reasons to shoot film - mostly aesthetic (and even that is a very subjective arena) - but I would say that on the whole, the "digital has made things cheaper and better" argument does hold up. I think that's exactly the foundation that RED is continuing to build upon, just in a new industry. I can also certainly understand why this change (and the slow, yet steady shift to digital in general) threatens the status quo of traditional filmmaking, and why there are many people uneasy with it. Change always brings about this reaction. As you've said, however, the digital genie is out of the bottle; choosing to deny it merely closes a (rather large) door of opportunity.

 

Well I'd even be willing to say entirely aesthetic if you like.....

 

I don't deny your last sentence but I don't see RED or digital as changing the status quo per se -- more like more people want to join the staus quo --

 

I could put it this way, if I bought a RED (or whatever) it would make my work harder than ever, to overcome the industrial assumptions of its imager whereas I know how to do this with film, or at least I'm constantly getting there, the result of many years of experience with it and the collective history of 100 years of same in motion pictures, 150 in stills...

 

I'm not saying the chance for us to do reinvention isn't a worthy challenge, I just want to make sure the tools are a help not a hinderance.

 

-Sam

[Francis Kuhn]

Hi Fran,

 

I appreciate your contributions but I do feel you are exaggerating things a bit. You're saying that in a few months, your 1DS MKIIs will be completely useless? That a Dual-Core Mac Pro is now incapable of dealing with your still photos simply because a newer model is out? Surely that's not the case. Maybe we'd all like to be using the most current, cutting-edge technology, but it's certainly not necessary to stay on top of the game. In fact, having even a mediocre tool and a good deal of talent will trump an amateur with the "latest gear" any day.

Hi Haakon,

 

Sorry to go off topic again (and this will be my last post about this since it?s supposed to be a RED topic). I wanted to leave you with a few thoughts because you make some good points. The problem with your position is it?s simply too rational. You?re right?who needs more than 16MP? I, on the other hand, have to look at it from a business standpoint.

 

The new version of the 1Ds is rumored to be at least 22MP. Most people will not need a file this large, but my clients, the ones who pay for the shoots, will expect to get the best possible image. I can tell you, as good as the 1Ds MKII is, it is still not good enough for many shots. A simple comparison of images made with the Canon 1Ds MKII and a Phase One P45 medium format digital back will convince anyone that there?s absolutely no substitute for cubic inches. The new Canon?s extra MPs are going to show up on the screen and in print. I won't even go into things like enhanced low-light performance, which will certainly be improved in the new model and was the main reason I dumped my original 1Ds for the MKIIs. And, quite frankly, I?m not good enough to spot my competition (who are absolutely not amateurs and absolutely will be using the MKIII as soon as it hits the street) that kind of advantage.

 

As for computers, they simply can?t be fast enough. The Dual Core Mac Pro is fast, but when you?re working on huge Photoshop files with multiple layers, the time between saves is agonizingly long. I have a good friend who shoots events in the RAW format who is constantly upgrading computers?about every six to nine months. He says the time to process a RAW file is cut by 5-10 seconds with each new generation of computer. It saves him many batch-processing hours on a typical 2000-image shoot. If the new 1Ds file is 22MP, the 8 Core Mac suddenly won?t look so fast any more.

 

Anyway, back to the real topic.

 

-Fran

[Ralph Oshiro]

A simple comparison of images made with the Canon 1Ds MKII and a Phase One P45 medium format digital back will convince anyone that there?s absolutely no substitute for cubic inches.

So true. Even with a smaller pulley and more boost, there's simply no substitute for cubic inches. Forget RED vs. film . . . let's get to the real fight . . . Ford vs. Chevy!

Edited May 13, 2007 by Ralph Oshiro

[Häakon]

Sorry to go off topic again (and this will be my last post about this since itâ??s supposed to be a RED topic).

Hi Fran,

 

Thanks for your respectful reply - everything you have pointed out makes sense and I think this whole issue just comes down to how your own personal workflow pans out and what your individual needs are. Many of us work in either the "still" or "motion picture" industries, but those umbrellas are huge and what works for one person can be a completely unworkable solution for someone else. The great thing is that there are always new tools coming down the pipeline that help facilitate the process.

 

For me, personally, there is no question that shooting digitally has been enormously beneficial from both a financial and time-savings standpoint in the work that I do. The choice to shoot digitally on some projects has also been a direct result of this. That's not to say that it is always a compromise; I certainly love the digital workflow and the instantaneous nature of digital capture. I think RED puts forth a mighty good case for the first true alternative to shooting film at a price that is not so astronomical it just isn't feasible. This is, again, not to say that RED is a replacement - just an alternative - but it will unquestionably have strengths and advantages over shooting film. Now that the resolution and latitude are vastly approaching the "standards" of celluloid film (again, 35mm), I think that's the reason it's a big deal for many filmmakers. My original reply was to your post where your stance was that in your experience, shooting digitally ends up costing you more than shooting film. My feeling is that you're still going to need that faster computer to edit your images whether they're digitally acquired or scans of traditional film. The other great thing about technology is that as time marches on, the cost of equipment continues to fall. How much do the new Mark III bodies cost? How much can you sell your old bodies for? No doubt there will be a few thousand dollars' worth of overlap there, but in 15 months is that not a pretty understandable cost of doing business? I tell you, you have it much better off in the still world. The fact that RED is not only pushing the quality envelope but shattering the price barrier for digital motion picture capture at the same time is a huge deal.

 

There will always be an exception to the rule, and our good friend Stephen will no doubt be happy to point it out for us. :) But I think that, in general, it's pretty tough to make an argument for digital being the costlier alternative when everything else is equal. FWIW, I think your posts are spot on topic, because of the concept that RED represents and the importance that remains in discussing and fleshing these ideas out. I have never seen a (camera) company be so forthright with their customers about the design process every step of the way, and I think that's another reason they will be handsomely rewarded. Delays or not, they certainly have people talking!

Edited May 13, 2007 by Häakon

[mhoy guyt]

"Anyway, we've got reservation #404. People will probably be playing around with the cameras for 2-3 months before our turn comes up. Plus whatever shakedown the current prototypes are getting."

 

It'll be damned interesting to see how many of the reservation holders actually buy cameras, and how many decide to ask for the ir $1K back.

 

I can't help wondering if there isn't some sort of speculator element at work here, where a certain segment of the reservation holders have no real use for a camera, but are attracted to the notion that if the RED proves to be a runaway success, they can sell the rights to their early reservation for a profit.

 

That could explain at least some of the runaway up-sucking from on certain forums from people who obviously wouldn't know poop from shaving cream :P

 

If the RED works as well as advertised, that might not be such a silly notion, and all they'd be risking is the interest on $1,000.

 

Well as I said, I'm not interested in buying one, but I certainly know some people who are.

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA