Chris Kenny

Sure, 600 reservations might only mean 500 sales, but you'd be a little irresponsible if you took 600 reservations (and counting) when you only intended to make 500 cameras. I seriously doubt that the RED ONE model will only be sold to people who get reservations before Oct. 31. I suspect when RED talks about locking down the program, they mean the terms of the program, e.g. what package you get at what price.

As far as I know RED hasn't said they'll stop at any specific round number. Jim Jannard's explanation for closing reservations: It sounds like the reservations existed mostly to gauge demand, and they think they've got a good handle on that now. That also looks like a hint that maybe prices will go up, or people who don't reserve won't get the display included in the $17.5K price, or something along those lines.

I'm more than willing to spend money on a good value, and RED is certainly that. I expect to pay $24-25K for a package based around Nikkor photo lenses (yes, I'm aware of the limitations of photo lenses), and make money with that while waiting for RED's zoom to come out later next year.

I spend a fair bit of money on hardware, software, network connectivity, etc. as part of what I do, but I don't even spend $10 without evaluating whether I'm getting a good value. I rather suspect the same is true of anyone who freelances or has their own business. If you don't think that way, you end up broke pretty fast. That's really basically all I was saying: if people have to put down money, even if it's not a financial stretch, they'll evaluate their needs and figure out how likely they are to want the camera and how likely they are to have the cash when it's needed, before they put in a reservation. If they didn't have to put down money, some people would do it for the hell of it, on the off chance they might possibly want one and might possibly be able to come up with the cash, and RED would probably have five times the number of reservations, with most people on the list having no serious intention of buying.

Why? Because I think people are unlikely to put up $1000 without some consideration, whereas a professional DoP wouldn't have any problem doing so? I frankly think you're being unjust to professional DoPs here! No, I'm not a professional DoP. I'm in the tech industry, and I'm approaching RED from that angle, not from the traditional film production angle. I also run my own business, which means I'm not used to spending large amounts of other people's money, which maybe some people in the traditional production business are.

Once again, there's a psychological difference between just filling out a form, and actually putting down $1000, that's largely unrelated to the amount of money one has. We obviously disagree on this point, and it's not really worth going back and forth over and over, so let's forget about it.

I said putting down $1000 was a far bigger step psychologically than just sticking one's name on a list. This remains true even if it is not a big step financially. Few individuals and probably even fewer companies will put up $1000 on a whim, with no serious consideration, regardless of how much money they have.

It's a far bigger step, psychologically, to put down $1000 than it would be to just fill out a web form to get your name on a list. Even if you can get the money back. I suspect if RED didn't require the deposit, there would be lots of people getting on the list just on the off chance they might want to buy one, or because it's cool in some circles to have a RED number these days, or whatever. People would be much more likely to do it on a whim without serious consideration.

Having a reservation system is useful because it helps RED gauge demand, and provides a fair way to allocate cameras which are likely to be in short supply early on. The $1000 deposit requirement is probably just a way of making sure only people who have a serious intention to buy will reserve a camera.

I don't think these markets are quite as distinct as they're often presented as being. There are a lot of people using DVX/HVX/H1 level cameras who probably have the money for more serious cameras, but don't see anything that provides sufficient value at a price they can afford. RED might be priced to compete with the "varicam middle market" (actually I suspect you can get into RED for half the price), but its specs put it in the same class as the DALSA Origin. Assuming this won't disrupt the current market segmentation would be unwise. Also, consider that cameras at the DVX/HVX/H1 level often get replaced every couple years, which frequently requires buying new accessories, etc. This almost certainly won't be the case with RED. RED has specs good enough that it should be quite future-proof out of the box, and it uses standardized accessories. And RED has even talked about things like offering sensor upgrades in the future; send in your body, get it back with a better sensor. RED could end up being significant cheaper over a five or ten year period than working your way through a succession of prosumer cameras. (Standard disclaimer: assuming the camera ships, etc.)

The reservation doesn't go into much detail, really. The current understanding is that the $17,500 will include a camera body (with sensor and PL mount) and an LCD/OLED/whatever display that can be mounted on the camera. It's explicit that it doesn't include the cage, the rail system, a lens, or any of the various recording options. RED-DRIVE, which is expected to be a 2.5" hard drive system that can be mounted on the camera for recording, is expected to be available for "under $1000" for an 80 GB version. Pricing for other recording options (the RAID and flash-based systems) hasn't been announced. I haven't seen anything said about batteries, power adaptors, cases, warranties, service plans, manuals, etc. RED is also careful to note that final specifications and release date are subject to change. A reservation does, however, guarantee you will get the $17,500 price, and notes which number camera you'll get. If you're not happy with what RED ultimately announces, you can, of course, give up your spot in the queue and get your money back. Otherwise the $1000 is put toward the price of your camera when you buy. My understanding is you have to buy when your turn comes up, or give up your reservation. RED folks have mentioned in the last few days that the specs are getting close to lock-down, in preparation for building some fully integrated prototypes for testing the December time frame, so things will probably become a lot more clear over the next couple of months. Most of this info has been gleaned by reading posts from RED employes on message boards, so make of that what you will.

Actually, the resolution of the display isn't known. 720p was that resolution given for the EVF at IBC. The EVF won't be included, but RED has said if it's done at the same time as the camera, you might be able to get an EVF instead of the display for a little more money. Also, RED has pointed out a number of times that the technology to be used for the display hasn't been decided on yet. Might be LCD, might be something else (presumably OLED). And it's still not clear if you'll be able to select what mount you want, or if PL mount will come standard, and you'll have to buy anything else separately. (Mounts are intended to be interchangeable by the end user.) We've got a reservation, and I can confirm, no interest on deposits.

The "five times" thing wasn't just about cameras; I was also thinking of e.g. $1200 matte boxes, $8000 tripods and the like. This stuff just doesn't cost that much to make. I don't think the situation with cameras is quite that bad... but if you look at what you get in the prosumer market vs. what you get in the pro market, it's clear there's some pretty serious price inflation. The jump in price from an $8K HVX200 to an AJ-HDC27H VariCam at $66K (with no lens or viewfinder) frankly just isn't justified by the technical differences. Maybe this is a result of real R&D costs. And on that front, addressing your other point, I think RED (or if not RED, then someone) will be able to achieve economies of scale that current players can't because current players aren't really trying to achieve scale with their pro products. Either they they think demand for pro products wouldn't expand enough even with lower prices (I think it would), or they like the current sort of market segmentation, with nice high margins on their high-end stuff (that works only as long as everyone tacitly agrees to do it). I think this market segmentation is largely a result of the fact that for many years, video could only be pushed so far, while film could only be made so cheap. There was no real possibility of a mid-range, and two distinct markets with totally different types of customers emerged. In the last few years, as high-end video has started to approach film quality, the major players have continued to design for these two distinct markets, despite the fact that the same technology now allows for a continuum of products, literally all the way from cell phone cameras to high-end cinema. Cameras like RED and the Silicon Imaging camera seem so radical not because they're making huge unforeseen leaps in technology (though I don't mean to downplay the serious technical challenges involved), but because the market has been lagging behind the technology.

Why is RED's price considered so untenable? It does seem possible the price might rise after the pre-orders, but really I don't think the price is all that absurdly low. I think too many people are used to judging by the standards of the film and video production industries, where pretty much everything costs five times what it should as a general rule, due to limited volumes and the simple fact that many customers have the ability to pay. I'm coming at RED from a very different angle. While I've got some experience with video production, most of my background is in the computer industry, where obviously there's a huge amount of competition driving prices down, and where everyone is used to major improvements every year. This computer industry model seems to have carried over to dSLRs... why shouldn't it carry over to digital cinema cameras as well? Well, I can think of one reason why it hasn't. I think most of the big players in digital cinema right now are assuming that the volume wouldn't be there even if they did cut their prices to RED's levels, so they don't see any reason to cut prices. I personally believe they're missing the boat on this... from what I've seen a lot of the people currently shooting on prosumer cameras have the money for something at RED's price point, there just isn't anything presently on the market at that price point that justifies the extra expense over prosumer offerings. Well, 4K at that price point justifies the extra expense! From some things Jim has said, it seems pretty clear that RED shares this general view -- that they can make lots of money moving (by industry standards) large numbers of cameras at low prices. One way or another, this will get tested. Even if RED never ships (and that's not the way I'd bet today), someone else will try the same approach. Silicon Imaging is actually trying something similar right now, though with a slightly lower-end (and even cheaper) camera, and they're further along. Interesting times.

You hadn't heard any buzz about RED previously? That's funny, because I've heard the camera's detectors complaining about all the 'hype' for months, here and in various other forums. RED is backed by Jim Jannard, who's worth a billion dollars or so, and who from everything I've seen is doing this because he thinks it's interesting and he thinks this particular market is ripe for some serious change. I haven't see any indication that RED is seeking outside investment. And in addition to financial backing, Jim seems to have a large personal investment in RED. If I were worth a billion bucks and someone robbed the offices of my pet project with the apparent intention (based on what RED's said about what was stolen) of stealing my work, I think I'd be willing to put up some pretty serious cash to find out who it was. Anyway, the theory that RED has invented this break-in to have an excuse for delaying shipment doesn't make any sense, as they've already publicly stated they'll only lose one or two days of work as a result. Whether RED actually delivers as promised remains to be seen, of course. As RED folks themselves have pointed out several times, there are still many challenges to overcome. And healthy skepticism is never bad. But speculating that the company is lying about this break-in crosses the line, in my book, into unhealthy cynicism.

I've thought a lot about this, and the answer I've come up with is "sometimes". If you're making a $100M movie with tons of visual effects work, A-list actors, etc. then even if your camera and your film stock and processing costs were free you'd probably only save a couple percent, at most, on your budget. This means that, obviously, an inexpensive digital cinema camera won't enable you to make a $100M movie for very much less than $100M. Or a even $5M movie for much less than $5M. If digital is chosen for films in this price range, it will be because it's better for a particular production, not because it's cheaper. It's more interesting to approach this from the other side. What are the people making $3000 movies with $20000 worth of equipment doing right now? They're not spending anything on crew payroll, because they're just making movies with their film school friends. They're not spending anything on cast, because they're getting underemployed actors, who just want to act, to work for free. They're probably spending next to nothing on things like wardrobe and locations, because they're taking interesting stuff their cast/crew have free access to (the rich uncle's yacht, etc.) and writing them into the script. They're choosing their subject matter so they don't need stunts, explosions, elaborate visual effects, or other stuff that just fundamentally can't be done for cheap. They're doing post-production on the desktop, even if that means they can't twiddle knobs to tweak color in real-time as the footage plays. If they do all of this well enough (most of them won't, of course, but a few will), you can't tell they've done it on the cheap. But there is still one place where you can tell, immediately, if a production is an ultra-low-budget affair... right now, there's just no way to do acquisition on the cheap and have quality that rivals 35mm on a big screen. Unlike with all these other things, it doesn't matter how talented you are, or how much time you're willing to invest, or how carefully you tailor your script to fit within your limitations. There's just no way to shoot a 35mm-quality feature without spending tens of thousands of dollars (probably upwards of $100K) on camera rental, film stock, processing, telecine, lab costs, etc. or renting one of the existing digital cinema cameras at a daily rate that's probably higher than the production's entire budget. (And ending up with digital footage you probably can't practically use with your desktop editing system anyway.) And this is where inexpensive digital cinema cameras make a huge difference. If RED delivers, 6 months from now there will be a way to get that quality level, with maybe a $25-30K camera package you can buy outright, and few additional costs on a per-production basis. Now, obviously this approach won't let you tell every story. You can't make Star Wars or Lord of the Rings for $3000 just because you can now shoot 4K for cheap. But there are a lot of interesting stories it will let you tell. This isn't going to radically change Hollywood, mind you... but bringing the cost of 35mm-quality acquisition down from $100K per feature to $25-30K as a one-time expense and maybe $1500 worth of hard drives per feature is certainly going to have a major impact on a particular segment of the market. And it will matter to major distributors, because they'll start seeing ultra-low-budget stuff on their radar that they might want to consider buying because of the picture quality, rather than in spite of it (or in rare cases, because the low quality works artistically for the subject matter).