Red: not for indie film makers

[finegrain]

I think that's a bit silly. This camera is absolutely for indie film makers. Not for all of them, in all circumstances, but it's a big step forward.

Let's take a 90 minute film and assume a shooting ratio of 6:1 (conservative). Your film stock alone is going to be $15,000. Shoot S16 and maybe you can get it down to $10,000. Then add another $10,000 for processing and telecine. For the moment, we'll ignore the film out. So for the price of my film and processing alone, I can BUY a camera kit (which means my next film has NO camera or film costs).

Post is a bit tricky, but not out of the question for indie filmmakers. On a modest budget (on my current home computer) I could off-line at 720p for a final on-line at 2k at a post house. If I spent an additional $10,000 for a Kona card and a faster RAID, I could edit at home at 2k.

None of this is cheap. But film is art via industrial production. It's expensive. What this (non-existant camera) does (hopefully) is take away a few more limitations of shooting digital (shallower DOF, wider latitude, RAW capture)

It is not going to suit people who are making great films on a $5,000 budget using a DVX. But the shift in the market will affect them as well. Once the RED is released, do you really think they can still sell the HVX200 for $10,000? The technology will filter down.

For people working at higher budgets, RED opens the possibility of bringing in a higher quality image at a lower price. It won't kill Hollywood or overthrow capitalism. It won't give you a better script or get better performances from your actors. And it certainly doesn't come with a distributor. It will just make things easier. That's good.

 

[Martin Hill]

$17,500 is a lot of money. But it's still a low price for what you're getting. Jim isn't making much profit on this camera - we're extremely lucky that his passion comes before profit.

If you have no plans to retire within the next decade, then RED will probably be more cost effective than a cheaper camera. RED will last for at least a decade or two, whereas cheaper cameras will be showing their age within the next 5 years. That's not including the fact that RED can also be upgraded in the future whereas AFAIK all cheaper cameras offer no or very limited upgrade ability.

The main reason I'm buying RED is due to the lifetime of the camera. Although I'm very (VERY) excited over the idea of having 2540P to play with, I have no practical use for it at the moment, but I will do in the future.

 

[Stephen W]

The way I see it, this camera pretty much makes stuff the Genesis, CineAlta and Varicam redundant (or it will when available). It gives me the ability to do more than those cameras could, but brings the price down to within my range. I'd say that's fairly radical.

 

[Owen]

Look at it this way -- instead of a camera that costs as much as your house you can now get the same results with one that costs as much as your car!

I'd say that's progress.

...okay technically the HVX cost more than my car, but I need a decent analogy.

 

[dustino]

This camera, given its preliminary specs, should outperform cameras at three times its cost. Can I afford it? Hell no. But it still looks like it aims to revolutionize digital filmmaking while simultaneously dropping the price tag to one-half or one-third of current industry leaders. That's enormous progress, and it shows that Jim Jannard is hardly motivated by profits alone. Hey, I'd love it if this thing cost under $10K, but that's simply not realistic. It's price point seems dramatically lower than it would need to be to secure a place in the market. We should be supporting this effort right now. Even if you can't afford this camera - it will have a huge impact on the quality-to-cost ratio in digital video accross the board. I find that very exciting.

 

[vamshi]

"For people working at higher budgets, RED opens the possibility of bringing in a higher quality image at a lower price. "

Regarding to this above quote ...the answer from me is independent film makers dont deal with higher budgets.

independent film makers most budget starts from 7000$ to 20000$.
anything beyond 20000$ is a big budgets.

When we talk about making money...An independent film maker mostly dont think he gets his money back.(except few).

I am not saying that it dont have a market or what ever... i am still simply saying that this cant be affordable for inde film makers.

Martin Hill:
"If you have no plans to retire within the next decade, then RED will probably be more cost effective than a cheaper camera. RED will last for at least a decade or two, whereas cheaper cameras will be showing their age within the next 5 years."

I feel its a matter of hype..like it happened in the case of canon xl2, canon hd , dvx hvx, jvc or what ever...within one year everything changed.

vamshi

 

[ovjamaica]

Once the RED is released, do you really think they can still sell the HVX200 for $10,000? The technology will filter down.

This statement summarizes exactly why I am excited about RED. Can I afford even the body of RED? At present, no. But this will knock other cameras down and will also cause better products to be made due to the increased competition. I would love to buy a RED, but even if I don't I sure am glad that they are making it. I wish Jannard and his team the best of luck in bringing this successfully to market. And I have no doubt that they will.

 

[WesVasher]

Sharing costs...

Sharing costs...

My brother and I like to work on our own little video projects together. We could split the cost of a 25k RED system and it wouldn't be that bad... 12K each, price of a used car. Could start out with a couple inexpesive primes and use the REDRIVE with REDCODE to keep storage and editing cost down pretty low.

And who's to say we couldn't rent the camera out? That could help pay for it also? Or take on paying gigs part time?

I keep reading that this will be a 40-50K system when you're done buying everything you need. I just don't follow this logic. Not everyone needs 4K uncompressed and the best lenses.

Exciting but still have to wait and see if the video looks good. Actually it will have to look great.

 

[Jaime Valles]

independent film makers most budget starts from 7000$ to 20000$. anything beyond 20000$ is a big budgets.

Well, most of hollywood considers low-budget independent filmmaking tro be in the $500,000 to $7,000,000 budget range. What you're talking about is NO-Budget filmmaking. $0 to $99,999 is no-budget filmmaking. Given those numbers, I would use one of the HDV cameras and record to tape and edit on a current mid-level computer. Just because 4K is now available for a lot less than ever thought possible, doesn't mean you MUST use it. All the other $3000 - $9000 1/3" cameras didn't just disappear.

That said, I think you'll be able to rent this thing for a month for the cost of an HVX, and the quality should be way better. Who said you have to buy the camera? Renting is always an option.

EDIT: Spelling

 

[masada1903]

"independent film makers most budget starts from 7000$ to 20000$.
anything beyond 20000$ is a big budgets.

When we talk about making money...An independent film maker mostly dont think he gets his money back.(except few).

I am not saying that it dont have a market or what ever... i am still simply saying that this cant be affordable for inde film makers.
vamshi

What you are describing is below a shoe-string budget. By industry standards, anything under a million -- yes, a million -- is low budget, independent filmmaking. A lot of these guys make their money back in direct-to-video sales.

I understand what you are saying, and that most people who are self-financing can only do so much (I could only afford the same as you, if I went out of my own pocket). I do, however, think that there will be a remarkable number of indy film types who do jump at this camera. Most of my film school friends have so much debt, the Red camera seems like a drop in the bucket.

And as Jarred and Barry have pointed out, if you approach this with a business perspective, you'd be surprised how quickly you can earn back the cost. This isn't something you buy without doing some planning, and most people will have to do some work to make the expense doable, but that really shouldn't be unusual.

I'd never buy a $20,000 car (or $10,000 for that matter), without figuring out how I was going to pay for it. But my car most likely would not help me recoup my price in a matter of months, either.

 

[penfever]

Plus, there's always the rental market - I think when you talk about independent filmmaking, you really should consider renting. I mean, if you use a camera for one week out of the year why would you own it in the first place?
If you're in the market for an experiment device/previz cam/documentary thing/whatever then any of the excellent HD/HDV cams is a good choice.
Seriously. What in the name of God are you complaining about? Because whatever it is, you need to look in the mirror and admit that at this point, you're just making excuses. Write your film. Make your film. Rent the cam if you have to - get it from a friend, whatever. This wonderful camera will help every filmmaker, everywhere, when it is released. Let's just be happy it exists.

 

[masada1903]

Plus, there's always the rental market - I think when you talk about independent filmmaking, you really should consider renting. I mean, if you use a camera for one week out of the year why would you own it in the first place?
If you're in the market for an experiment device/previz cam/documentary thing/whatever then any of the excellent HD/HDV cams is a good choice.
Seriously. What in the name of God are you complaining about? Because whatever it is, you need to look in the mirror and admit that at this point, you're just making excuses. Write your film. Make your film. Rent the cam if you have to - get it from a friend, whatever. This wonderful camera will help every filmmaker, everywhere, when it is released. Let's just be happy it exists.

Ditto!

I'm not sure that I've ever worked on a shoot where the camera wasn't rented. If you do the paperwork to break down your shoot, you'll figure out the absolute minimum of days you need to shoot, and then you rent. Not that bad. Renting is pretty much the industry standard.

Of course, I'm a tech addict, and borderline insane, so I don't mind buying this camera for personal use. rogar-BigGrin(DBG)

 

[Tainted]

My take on this is that the new "Indie" is becoming a little less "guerilla" than it used to be, and I personally think that isn't a bad thing. For me, I make a distinction between no-budget (aka guerilla), low-budget (aka indie), and big-budget (aka studio). Now maybe I've taken some liberties with that breakdown, but I think the days of bucketing all lower-budget projects as "indie" might be numbered, which paves the way for a new breakout in semantics between indie and guerilla. Anyway, just a few thoughts on that front from a total amateur...

 

[JPatnaude]

Maybe as an older guy here watching the commments, I can add a little perspective.

23 years ago when I started editing there was no timecode- only "microbursting." Mac classics were great little word processors at $2600.

A post production edit suite cost close to $250K to $500K. Switcher, A/B roll decks ( 1 inch and 3/4), edit controller, mixer, and a host of blackburst and genlocks, and TBC's. Addd the vacuum hoses for the 1 inch machines, air conditioning for all that noisy gear too.

Cameras were tube type: either plumbicon or saticons. Shoot a bright light by mistake and there's be a serious smearing & burn-in. Cameras were huge and heavy, and so were the 3/4 inch decks that you'd carry on your shoulder. Prices were around $50 - $60K.

Fast forward to the present...well, you get the idea. We have a complete production facility on a desktop. DVcams and better.

for $17K and the price of a lense and a few other accesories, you can have a production system to compete with the big boys. Heck- let the big boys rent from YOU.
There's definately a place for this camera.
Jeff Patnaude:beer:

 

[masada1903]

for $17K and the price of a lense and a few other accesories, you can have a production system to compete with the big boys. Heck- let the big boys rent from YOU.
There's definately a place for this camera.
Jeff Patnaude:beer:

Great points and perspective!

 

[J.R. Hudson]

This camera will be very affordable for the SERIOUS independent filmmaker

One film comes to mind for me and to this day is the film that 're-inspired' my filmmaking dream:

28 Days Later

Filmed on the Canon XL1. If one cannot be inspired by this single film then no camera no matter the price will work for you. Stop focusing on the limitations of your own creativity and get busy making your dreams come true.

What about Pieces of April ? Filmed on the Sony PD-150 ? This film got Patricia Clarkson an Oscar Nod

How about Open Water shot with the VX2000 ? It didn't look all that spectacular but it sure did the job. I bet with a more skilled helmer behind the lens this film would have looked great!

What about November and the DVX100 ?

Let's not blame RED nor any other camera for that matter for your inability to find motivation and success. Something tells me if we gave you an Arri 535 you'd still complain

 

[oneinfiniteloop]

Something tells me if we gave you an Arri 535 you'd still complain

Hey John, I wouldn't be complaining if you handed me over an 535!

Actually someone hand me any camera and I'll tell you a story, that's the name of the game. I'd like to add one more person to your list John, even though it wasn't shot on video, but the spirit rings true...Robert Rodriguez. Sold his body to medicine to make his movies and now he has final cut on all his movies, can make whatever he wants, and did it all his way. He spent about $7000 on El Mariachi, but $6500 or so went to film and processing. I can buy an HVX with 1 4gb card for the same amount of money he spent for film processing and shoot a movie with a much higher technical quality, so why complain.

I think a lot of people have gotten spoiled with all this technology. Go pick up anything you can find and make a movie. Talking about it will get you nowhere fast!

 

[Blaine]

I think a lot of people have gotten spoiled with all this technology. Go pick up anything you can find and make a movie. Talking about it will get you nowhere fast!

Very true. Like Nike says, "Just do it."

 

[ddh]

My first documentary was shot on a Hi8 Sony and that was in the early 90s. What a difference today. All in all, I can say that Red will allow anyone with a bit of backing/money an ability to shoot on the highest level...period. I'm independent and have been for over 20 years and I will find the money for this camera!

 

[taubkin]

And we don't even have to shoot 2K. Shoot 1080p. It will be a CLEAN, beautiful 1080p, with great latitude, and great detail (since it's sampled at 2K on the imager). Transfer that to film and you have a VERY HIGH quality "no-budget" film. I mean, I'm still shooting DV. If I can get a HD master that looks like a 35mm telecine to HD, that's freakin good to me!

Now, I imagine a TV commercial house, let's see. For a small commercial They shoot 16 or 35. They transfer to digibeta and offline it to DV. Edit the DV version then go back to the post house to on line the digibeta. OK, I'm talking SD. For HD, they would probably transfer to HDCAM and online it at HD, same workflow.

Probably for the cost of 2-3 films (usually there are 2-3 on the same contract), they can gear up and stop paying lab and post costs forever. They in-house editor can do edit straight online, and a 2k or 4K master to SD TV, or even to HD TV, would look splendid.

The real deal is: will it look splendid? Because if it looks good, it will be a no brainer to jump in the workflow. It will do what Digital SLRs did to film in the professional still photo industry. If teh images are still worse than film, well... We get an HVX bigger brother.