Jump to content

Bouncers kicked out SONY


Richard Salsburg

Recommended Posts

I think it really only applies to one little, but very vital piece in the chain? BNC plugs! And look where that got us. The life of our precious footage. All relying on a $1.50 plug.

 

I welcome price cuts to this industry as much as anyone. I got a quote on an ARRI WRS system a few weeks ago. ?28,000. Wonder what the markup is on that little thing?

However I don't want $250 follow focus units that don't follow focus and $2000 tripods with pencil legs that were cheap to make and easy to carry. That's what PA's are for anyways :P

 

How simple are follow focus units? For goodness sake there hardly advanced technology. The reason for their high prices is because their a specialised piece of equipment. If the red one becomes the standard camera for everyone. Even wedding videographers will take it up before the cost spiralling down and the red adapting to the consumer, means it will be the only model, other than variations of what it is already.

 

Before this there will be a demand large enough to make good robust sturdy follow focus units at a cheap price.

 

Im not arguing the case here because I like whats happening. Actually I dont. But reality has to be faced. The red camera will shake up the camera industry and turn it upside down inside out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

How simple are follow focus units? For goodness sake there hardly advanced technology. The reason for their high prices is because their a specialised piece of equipment.

 

Yes they are specialised. They are made in a workshop in limited numbers and so yes the price pr. unit is high, but why would suddenly so many more people than today decide to buy a follow focus unit? There are some cheap ones out there already, but there are also more expensive ones. You get what you pay for and I don't see why any professional would ever want to buy something because it was cheaper than another. You buy it cause it's the best you can afford.

 

 

If the red one becomes the standard camera for everyone. Even wedding videographers will take it up before the cost spiralling down and the red adapting to the consumer, means it will be the only model, other than variations of what it is already.

 

I would say there are practical considerations that would hinder a wide adaptation of the Red in it's current form. Both for the camera and for Red as a company.

 

 

Im not arguing the case here because I like whats happening. Actually I dont. But reality has to be faced. The red camera will shake up the camera industry and turn it upside down inside out.

 

Time will tell. I'm not going to call you mad. To many people throughout history have been labeled mad by their peirs only to have their predictions come true, but I would say that perhaps your view on the industry is a little off :rolleyes:

Edited by Alexander Joyce
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How simple are follow focus units? For goodness sake there hardly advanced technology. The reason for their high prices is because their a specialised piece of equipment. If the red one becomes the standard camera for everyone. Even wedding videographers will take it up before the cost spiralling down and the red adapting to the consumer, means it will be the only model, other than variations of what it is already.

 

Before this there will be a demand large enough to make good robust sturdy follow focus units at a cheap price.

 

Im not arguing the case here because I like whats happening. Actually I dont. But reality has to be faced. The red camera will shake up the camera industry and turn it upside down inside out.

 

RED will have to drop their prices a lot to make it worthwhile for most people shooting weddings. They''ve got a good range of prosumer cameras at a third of the price of the basic RED body. That market really is price driven, unless you're shooting a society wedding.

 

Also given the type of zooms they use with auto focus it's highly unlikely they'd want to use a follow focus, the infinitely turning focus ring doesn't really work.

 

You're assuming a mass market as with consumer/prosumer cameras. The RED is still relatively expensive, especially when it's kitted out with lenses and professional camera people demand good tripods. Given the RED size and weight, the minimum you'd want would be at roughly Sachtler Video 18 level, although with 35mm lenses you will be wanting heavier tripods and heads.

 

As has been stated before in another thread, the RED is too large to be considered a consumer camera. It would be like taking a Sony DSR 570 on your holidays, since they're both roughly the same size.

 

The RED workflow isn't suitable for a various types of broadcast work. There are other cameras which can do these jobs better than the RED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trevor Swaim

right now i shoot weddings for a living ( http://www.starshinevideo.com ), as much as i would love to have a red camera for the few indie flicks I get to shoot in a given year. I can't afford to pay that much for a new cam. I just bought a JVC HD 110 to replace my DVX100 (non a or B) and i had a hard time justifing that.

 

would a wedding in 4k look great? heck yeah! but it also looks great in 720p HDV. Also i would like to say that i may be the only man in the world who loves the deep focus that a 1/3" chip gives me, 35mm DOF is the last thing i want for weddings or events.

Edited by Trevor Swaim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I think it's completely illusory to think that Red is going to replace all existing cameras (including 35mm) and drive rental companies into bankrupcy. The simple fact of the matter is that while it might approach 35mm quality, it is still not superior to it or even equal. And there are plenty of productions that can afford to shoot film and will continue to do so, because it still has its advantages.

 

As for the rental companies business, there is more to equipment rental than just a camera. Anyone who works professionaly knows that the kit they use changes literally every time. You pick different lenses, different cameras, different acessories, to suit your needs and budgets. On top of that a good rental company provides peace of mind and good service: you always know that your equipment is in tip top condition and that in case something breaks down or gets destroyed, a replacement will be available free of charge and with a minimum of time loss.

 

For people who are on the fringes of the industry the Red might seem like the only solution, but for most working professionals it is merely one option of many.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the last thing Red wants is for their camera to be branded a "wedding camera." With respect to the wedding videographers here.

 

Although that would be quite unique to have a camera that is used by Hollywood DOPs for features, and also wedding shooters.

 

There are lots of movies shot on 35mm, but I don't think too many weddings are shot on 35mm.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My goodness people here just don't get it? Who in their right mind (NOW think about this) who is going to buy a mid range camera when they can have the red? NO ONE with any sense.

 

Wedding videographers will buy the camera and downconvert.

 

Red technolgy will diversify with smaller fixed lens units and mass produced.

 

NOW all this means there will be only one type of technology for cameras REDS. Unless someone comes up with something better which I doubt.

 

All THE CAMERA Manufacturers will have to seriously alter the way they do business. Rental houses will be reduced to grip only.

 

This is if the red truly is the camera described by David and everything is as grounbreaking as were being told. Is it any wonder I couldn't believe the red was for real.

 

I for one will certainly not be buying any cameras in the near future.

 

Is there anyone here going to invest in a mid priced semi pro model at this point in time? I bet their is BUT I most certainly would not.

 

As for the industry, your all busted. The field just leveled. Film making is no longer the domain of a rich or select few. In some ways thats good. Although in the past the industry has had standards in morality and influenced our society even if those standards have been slipping in the search for more and more money. But for the most part it will add to the breakdown of values and morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of movies shot on 35mm, but I don't think too many weddings are shot on 35mm.

 

R,

There's something positively 19th century about they way people completely misunderstand the potential of cameras like the RED. Imagine being able to televise (if that's the word) a celebrity wedding, or the superbowl final or whatever, for showing live in a movie theater on a huge screen.

 

Despite the inroads made by TV and video rental, there's still something fundamental about gathering with a group of total or relative strangers for a special event. This is one reason why movie theatres continue to survive. Personally I think the big screen is needed for the commonality of the experience rather than image clarity.

 

I also rather think that that sort of group participitation is an unconsciously chosen substitute for the experience of attending religious servces in days gone by. Even people with no real religious inclination still tended to go, because it was about the only regular social activity available.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
My goodness people here just don't get it? Who in their right mind (NOW think about this) who is going to buy a mid range camera when they can have the red? NO ONE with any sense.

 

Wedding videographers will buy the camera and downconvert.

 

As for the industry, your all busted. The field just leveled. Film making is no longer the domain of a rich or select few.

 

First, there is a huge budget range in wedding videography and many work with $4000 or so prosumer cameras, so a $17,500 camera (probably over $30,000 by the time you accessorize it, buy lenses, etc.) isn't really of interest to them, so this is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. A guy who shoots weddings on a DVX100 isn't going to go get a camera package that costs seven times as much.

 

Second, the cost of a camera and stock is only a percentage of filmmaking production costs, so the field is hardly "levelled", another sweeping and inaccurate generalization. There are a lot more hurdles to overcome for making feature films than just the shooting format, and many of those hurdles are still financial, so movies will continue to cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to make, regardless of the shooting format, very much in the domain of the rich and select few -- even in the indie filmmaking scene.

 

Third, I can predict with great certainty that purchases of mid-range video cameras are not going to drop to zero overnight -- for one thing, even if everyone who planned on buying a midrange video camera (let's say a TV station was about to buy six Sony XDCAM's for their news shooters) changed their order to RED cameras, they'd be waiting because I doubt the RED production line is set-up to handle the market of over tens of thousands of broadcast cameras sold every year. It's just like Fuji couldn't handle the motion picture film market if Kodak stopped making motion picture film tomorrow. They aren't set-up for that volume level.

 

I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time pointing all of these obvious things out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, there is a huge budget range in wedding videography and many work with $4000 or so prosumer cameras, so a $17,500 camera (probably over $30,000 by the time you accessorize it, buy lenses, etc.) isn't really of interest to them, so this is a sweeping and inaccurate generalization. A guy who shoots weddings on a DVX100 isn't going to go get a camera package that costs seven times as much.

 

---------------------------------------------------------

Your getting married and want a record of your wedding what format do you want your wedding filmed in? The best quality? Perhaps not everyone will but videographers will soon realize that people will mostly want the best. Some won't. So the best camera for an event videographer will be one that does it all. As for lenses cheap versions from russia can be bought. If your a wedding videographer offering a film copy even if its to put away for future generations who do you think will get the work? Another thing is as I have said the red camera will diversify and smaller cheaper units will come on to the market

---------------------------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

 

Second, the cost of a camera and stock is only a percentage of filmmaking production costs, so the field is hardly "levelled", another sweeping and inaccurate generalization. There are a lot more hurdles to overcome for making feature films than just the shooting format, and many of those hurdles are still financial, so movies will continue to cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to make, regardless of the shooting format, very much in the domain of the rich and select few -- even in the indie filmmaking scene.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

Thats your opinion David But I can assure you there are many many people who will never get the chance but often times are even better than those who make it in the industry. As for quality this is an issue we have discussed and you know my opinion on this so Im not covering old ground again.

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

Third, I can predict with great certainty that purchases of mid-range video cameras are not going to drop to zero overnight -- for one thing, even if everyone who planned on buying a midrange video camera (let's say a TV station was about to buy six Sony XDCAM's for their news shooters) changed their order to RED cameras, they'd be waiting because I doubt the RED production line is set-up to handle the market of over tens of thousands of broadcast cameras sold every year. It's just like Fuji couldn't handle the motion picture film market if Kodak stopped making motion picture film tomorrow. They aren't set-up for that volume level.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------

I agree in the immediate short term. It will take people a while to wake up.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

QUOTE

 

I'm not sure why I'm even wasting my time pointing all of these obvious things out.

 

 

----------------------------------------------------------------

I can't help you there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll just let it be and ignore these posts. I'll let others try to figure out how the RED camera will lead to a loss of morals.

 

Could be for the best. It reminds me of a focus puller who insisted on only using Selvyt lens cleaning cloths with "Arri" printed on them under the belief that they were better. Of course, they all come from the same manufacturer and they were all the same regardless of the camera/rental house logo printed on them.

Edited by Brian Drysdale
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll just let it be and ignore these posts. I'll let others try to figure out how the RED camera will lead to a loss of morals.

Thats not what I said though is it. much of my posting has been my opinion which is based on my life experience. Im only applying it to your summarisation of the red camera and if your right then this automaticly applies.

 

The facts. Business is ruthless, the public are Apathetic and greed, selfishness, agenda, gives direction along with our politicians selling us out by giving into big business. Corruption is rife and money and power can determine the way. The industry was safe because it had a secure hold. That hold is gone and its soon to be in the public domain.

 

We used to have a film industry that could shape the world that could make statements on our government and societies Im afraid that is set to change. Because of ONE little camera? NO Because control of the film industry is ending.

Edited by Mark Williams
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I'll just let it be and ignore these posts. I'll let others try to figure out how the RED camera will lead to a loss of morals.

 

Speaking of a loss or morals...I wonder how the porn industry willl react to Red?????

 

I'm being serious here. They embraced video technology when it first came out for their "industry".

 

And since the porno movie industry still makes more money than Hollywood each year, they are a serious market with serious money to spend.

 

R,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of a loss or morals...I wonder how the porn industry willl react to Red?????

 

I'm being serious here. They embraced video technology when it first came out for their "industry".

 

And since the porno movie industry still makes more money than Hollywood each year, they are a serious market with serious money to spend.

 

R,

 

 

Probably already a few cameras that are going that way.

Even though the combined industry might make more money, I would think each individual production is still fairly low budget. Although there could be exceptions like Playboy here i.e. Can't say I know this industry to well :rolleyes:

Striving for higher picture quality when the audience are hardly critiquing the fine photographic work seems a bit of a waste though. Still, I'm sure there are those in that industry also who would want to be able to apply a more filmic look to their work, so it could very well be that they will jump onto this.

No doubt there is alot of money that goes into that business, but I guess even for someone producing this they will probably look at the costs of say an HVX200 and the Red i.e. and say that the picture quality from the HVX200 is good enough and it's still HD. Seeing that all of these films are either going to DVD/HD-DVD or to the Web anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
And since the porno movie industry still makes more money than Hollywood each year, they are a serious market with serious money to spend.

 

They ought to change the name of this thread to 'myths' as the Jumblemouths are running ramped here.

 

Video Sales and rentals for 2006 adult industry 3.62 bil

Internet adult sales 2006 2.84 bil

Cable / PPV / In-Room / Mobile / Phone Sex 2.19 bil

Total for three categories of adult industry $8.65 bil

 

You'll often hear a larger overall number thrown around such as #13bill. That is because it also includes magazines, dance clubs, and the sex novelty industry. I discluded info that was not comparable with the motion picture industry which by the way in 2006 box office revenue (not even including home video sales and rentals which was $23.6 bil) was $9.84 billion.

 

Warner Home Video made $4.26 billion in home video spending last year, about 18% of the home video market). And that is only a portion of their business. The largest porn video maker, Vivid, made $100 mill total in all catagories.

 

Translation:

 

Motion picture industry theater and home video $33.44 bil

Adult picture industry including all sales and rental, PPV/In-room/mobile 8.35 bil

 

The motion picture industry earns more than four times as much money as the adult industry.

 

 

So it is a myth that porn makes more than the motion picture industry but since this is a RED forum, myths are the flavor of the day. This thread alone is a book worth of myths thrown around as fact. This is one example.

 

 

Now if you want I can get into the myth that they are a serious industry who has a lot of money to spend too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Trevor Swaim

so now you're calling richard boddington a jumblemouth... wow you set the next few rounds out....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I think I'll just let it be and ignore these posts.

Same here. I think it's pretty clear to most of us that Mark Williams has no bloody clue what he is talking about as most of his posts are wishful thinking that has nothing to do with reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"the information is as good as it's source"

Who said that?

 

That is why I like the posts where people provide the links to the primal source of information. Other wise I always treat the post as a "IMHO"

If someone spends the time to show us the exact numbers or facts, what's the problem to cut and paste the links to the post windows from the web site you are reading it all about? or put the reference where you got it from. I always do it if I can. We want to contribute here for good of everybody.

Taking good information from this forum and delivering bad one is not a good contribution, is it?

 

http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/TeachingLib/Gu...t/Evaluate.html

 

Andrew

Edited by Andrew Ray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the industry, your all busted. The field just leveled. Film making is no longer the domain of a rich or select few. In some ways thats good. But for the most part it will add to the breakdown of values and morals.

 

 

Film making has never been limited to the rich or select few...but it has been limited to the resourceful and creative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

Visual Products

Film Gears

BOKEH RENTALS

CineLab

CINELEASE

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...