Page 56 of 133 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106 ... LastLast
Results 551 to 560 of 1328
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,004
    Default
    Yes, clients aren't paying for the camera, they're paying for the skills of the operator (unless you're working for free). I wouldn't buy an FX9 or a C300mk3 unless I had proof positive of client demand. (I quizzed a corporate production client on his interest in the FX9 and he told me he didn't know it well and still preferred the FS7. That told me that the FS7 would continue to work until later this year at a bare minimum.)

    The S1 was a camera for me that was cheap enough that it didn't need to earn an extra rental fee. It was enough that it lets me shoot in darkness and handle those doc/events situations I was struggling with.


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    7,448
    Default
    They used to pay for the cameras...that was a big part of the entire business. You'd take out a second mortgage and buy a $60K Betacam because you'd know all of your clients would pay a grand or whatever as a rental fee on top of paying for your "skills".

    People still try to get away with it today.

    I'm bouncing around with the posts...but with the one above, I just meant that people get cameras when maybe they had work lined up at one point but then it dried up. And then they are forced to work for lower rates to not only make any money they can but also because of the overall competition and industry changes.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,004
    Default
    Oh aha. Yes, clients will pay for cameras - I just meant that you shouldn't expect that people will hire you just because you own an Alexa Mini (except maybe as an AC).

    Someone said that some other dvxusers were getting $500 rental fees on the C300mk1 just last year. I never got that much of a kit fee for that camera alone (which I bought used in 2015) which made me wonder if I'm a worse negotiator or if it's that NYC is a saturated market with less owner/op bargaining power.


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Run&Gun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    4,477
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by ahalpert View Post
    Oh aha. Yes, clients will pay for cameras - I just meant that you shouldn't expect that people will hire you just because you own an Alexa Mini (except maybe as an AC).

    Someone said that some other dvxusers were getting $500 rental fees on the C300mk1 just last year. I never got that much of a kit fee for that camera alone (which I bought used in 2015) which made me wonder if I'm a worse negotiator or if it's that NYC is a saturated market with less owner/op bargaining power.

    It all depends on the area, the market being served(TV, corporate, etc.) and the individual client. In my over two decades experience, the low-ball calls generally come from NY and CA. Because those markets are heavily over-saturated and people will knee-cap their own mothers for work and clients are able to name their own price.

    And yes, owning a certain camera can get you calls that you may not have gotten otherwise. Same for certain pieces of other gear, too. When I bought my original C300, I immediately started putting it out there that I had it. Started getting calls and extra work because of it. Same thing with my F55. And 17-120. These weren’t willy-nilly purchases and I was buying them anyway, but they did bring in extra calls/rentals/work JUST because I had them.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,004
    Default
    Right but you had the skills to match, I assume. I meant you're not going to get hired with a camera but no experience. Interesting what you say about NY/LA


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    193
    Default
    Yep...have had producers say, "But in LA, our shooters show up with (names insane list of cameras and gear) all in for $400/day!"


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,004
    Default
    The latest rumors indeed suggest that the A7S3 will be more video-oriented in design than the R5, with a thicker body and a cooling vent. And supposedly it will do 4K120p and no 8K. I do wish it would have internal RAW though - I mean, you Pocket 6K users are the ones who rave about shooting BRAW! But I don't think Sony has any internal RAW on any camera, so I won't hold my breath.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,611
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by NorBro View Post
    It's confirmed R5 will have 4K 10-bit 4:2:2 HEVC (along with RAW and anything else thrown in there).
    (oops, the dog ate my homework ... i.e., DVXU doesn't save the text in the post)

    Anyway, the bit rate isn't specified, which means that it could discard a lot of info to achieve a "manageable file size". Or, as some may opine, adhere to the cartel rules. Or even own rules, so to protect 1DX III. So, a lower bit rate in 8K - say, under 200 Mbps - might take it out of the consideration for many visavis a 6K A7SIII with a similar or higher bit rate.

    For reference, Samsung Ultra records 8K at 600 MB/min but Red Raw (at ? compression) is 7 TB/hr.

    PS. Today, S1H was supposed to receive that long promised ProRez Raw upgrade to Atomos Ninja V. Oops. Dog ate their homework.


    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
    Senior Member ahalpert's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    1,004
    Default
    Nah the 8K RAW bitrate will be 1 or 2 Gbps - look at their bitrates elsewhere. Plus, I think it's really marketed to photographers who want to achieve something like the quality they're getting in their stills for short video clips


    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    6,611
    Default
    Canon Raw Light (a 3/5X compression) is 1 Gbps or ~ 512 GB per hour in 4K on C200. So, 8K would be roughly 1.5-1.7 TB/hr in CRL. Which can be 5-7 TB/hr, if there is no CRL, as the early announcements indicate.

    CFexpress cards currently run ~ $900-$1,200/TB. On C200, early "off-brand" CFast 2.0 prices made it manageable in relation to the camera's own price tag. In R5 case, the uncompressed 8K Raw may only be financially feasible in a couple of years time.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 56 of 133 FirstFirst ... 64652535455565758596066106 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •