The RED full-meal-deal?

Lots of good points made here. I also don't believe that a $4300 follow focus is priced appropriately. Which is why I wouldn't buy it. As Doc said, the market determines the price.

As Ash said, whining about prices is completely counterproductive. Do we stand outside of Ruth's Chris steakhouse and whine that a steak is priced at $80? Or do we go next door to McDonald's, choke down a 99-cent hamburger, and move on with our lives (noting that in no way does a McDonald's hamburger compare to a Ruth's Chris steak, other than that both serve the purpose of temporarily making hunger go away). Caviar is $300 an ounce (or whatever, doesn't really matter does it?) $300 per ounce for fish eggs. Do I complain about that price? No, I don't care, I just recognize that (gratefully) caviar will never be part of my life. I can go buy a pack of Red Vines for a buck, and I guarantee they taste better.

Do we whine about the cost of a BMW 760Li? $118,000? I mean, does it really, really cost that much to make it? Who cares? Who cares what the manufacturing costs are? The fact is that that's what the manufacturer sells it at, and you have three choices: choke down the price and buy it, or don't, or make your own.

Jim has chosen option 3. He's making his own. Even though it's a CineAlta at 1/7th the price, and -- oh yeah, it does tapeless and 2k and 4k and true variable frame rates too-- there will still be people who complain about the price of it, or its accessories, or 3rd party accessories, or whatever. And then there'll be people who understand and who will get this and put it to work and find out that they'll generate enough business to pay it off in the first month or two. And once it's free, once it's generated enough to pay itself off, does it really matter what the cost was? Of course not.

The MovieTube is $17,000. You won't hear me whine about the price of it, because frankly it's so ridiculous that I just don't consider it. Is it a good tool? Sure, probably. But nobody in their right mind would spend that much for a 35mm lens adapter, when they could be buying a Red instead. So why complain about the price? That thing will die on the vine because it's grossly, ridiculously overpriced. No reason to complain about it.
 
Last edited:
Exactly...put your thinking caps on and adjust your Business Plan so that project-generated funds pay for your RED system...and then the cost of the system is simply not relevant. Once you're in black ink, everything beyond actual project expenses is profit...and the quicker you can get there, the better...

Art is art, but art without business sense can turn you into an unintentional non-profit organization.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Last edited:
It must be producers, there always complaining about the price of everything, even having to buy sodas and water for the crew. If this equipment at its price point and capability is too expensive for you, you're probably not in the right business. Not saying that if you can't afford to layout that kind of money right now, but if you consider this too expensive. I think it is absolutly incredible that Jim was willing to spend his own money to bring this camera to market. He didn't have to do it, I'm sure he's monitarily well off and the sale of Red Cameras is not going to make or break him. However he brought his passion forward and allowed us to participate in the process. The result seems to be so promising that it will cut lose the indie film world. All I can say is thanks! I will find the money some how to purchase the full meal deal, and I'll be grateful that I can. Now if only some one would have a passion for a car that would run on tap water and look really cool and perform really hot for 30,000.00
 
Gopher, good points on why Jim is making the RED One camera system. This exerpt from my published interview with Jim Jannard (April) sheds some more light on why he is making RED:

Gibby – “So, we’ve covered the camera system up one side and down the other. I take you as a goal-oriented guy. You seem to like new challenges and projects. You seem like a guy that is really motivated by that. Why are you doing the RED Digital Cinema camera system?”

Jannard – “I’ve been a shooter for 30 years and a collector for twenty. I’ve bought just about every camera that’s been released. I was really frustrated that in the move from film to digital for motion pictures, or for video, no one was building the camera that I wanted to buy. I can’t say that about the still photograph industry. I’ve got cameras that I’m very content with, but in the video motion picture side, I couldn’t come up with something I really wanted to buy and own, and it just seemed like a big hole in the market. I’ve been passionate about cameras and shooting for so long, and we have the capability here to pull a project like this off, that I decided that I’d just make my passion my business.”

Gibby – “You’re enjoying this project, aren’t you!”

Jannard – “Very exciting! Very fun! The most fun I can remember having in a long time! It’s really terrific – and I’m really building the camera for me. I have an old philosophy: If we don’t sell one, and its something I’d be thrilled to own, then we’ll go ahead and do the project, and that’s how I’m treating this…”

Gibby – “You may be building a camera for you, but you’re sharing that camera, that R & D, and that capability with the rest of us in the motion media production industry, and that’s something that will be really well received.”

Jannard – “We’ll find out, if there’s any orders or not! Like I say, if there were no orders and no one else was interested in this camera, we would go ahead and finish it, because its something that I personally want to build.”

Gibby – “Its an idea that’s time has come.”

Jannard – “Yep – for me.”

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

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com
 
Gopher_Greene said:
It must be producers.
Click to expand...

Yes I guess it is producers... but I never short change my crew on food... or craft service... an old producer years ago told me the best way to keep a happy crew is feed them good and well... so I've always done that...

Maybe each of us is different... my back ground I guess my parents always taught me that you pay cash for everything... the only thing you put on credit is a home or car...

So I'm a creature of what they taught me... so I own my home in California, I own some acreage in California... and I own my home in Missouri... and I'm not trying to be snotty but when I mean I own it... the only bills I pay are for heating, cooling, taxes, etc... and trust me I'm not rich... shucks... :(

That's why I was teasing Barry in my above post about the $35 steak at Ruth's... a better way to explain that is this... my mother and her sister used to go out and eat... my mom would buy the .99 hamburger and her sister would buy the $8 combo... then her sister would ask her or really complain "well how come you got to go to Alaska for a crusie, how come you got to go to Texas for 8 weeks"... its what you want to spend your money and what you choose to spend it on...

Let me ask you guys when you go buy a car do you figure your budget out or do you just walk up to the dealer and pick out the car you want and then pray and hope that you make enough money to pay for it...

So by asking what would a monitor cost I want to know... or call me cheap who cares... but if I can get the Red zoom for only $9,500 over a zoom that costs $15,000 for example who knows maybe I'm thinking I can put that towards a better glidecam... and buying that instead of a stedicam... maybe I could afford some hmi's... its all how you look at things...

Gee the hot choclate this morning made me hyper...
 
In most markets, though, while there are overpriced luxury items, there are also reasonably priced products which serve the same functions, often just as well.

This has historically not been true in the professional video/film production market. Everything from matte boxes to lenses to camera bodies has been priced at "luxury" levels, and the only alternative has been to buy prosumer equipment, which typically isn't really in the same league, or often hasn't even existed. (There's no such thing as a prosumer follow focus. Or, maybe there are some companies moving in that direction now, but it's quite recent.)

To use the example of the BMW 760Li at $118K... what if that was the standard price for a car, and your only alternative if you didn't have the money was to buy a go-kart for $10K, despite the fact that the technology was there for someone to make a real car for $20K?

That would be something worth complaining about, wouldn't it? And if enough people complained, maybe someone would step up and make a car for $20K. It could come in red....
 
I love caviar (russian family name...). I don't swim in it, I don't eat it every day but I love it. I love eating great food in restaurants.

My dad always said, and I agree: I've never known anyone that has gone broke from eating well. People go broke from doing bad business.

Unless you are completely retarded, and is going to spend money you don't have on a very expensive restaurant every day, it's very hard to go broke by eating.

Now you can easily go broke in doing bad business. Then we realize that RED is business. Not only for them, but for us too. Can you make money from owning a RED? How much? Is that money you wouldn't make without it? Answer those questions for the camera body, for the follow focus, for the lenses, for the tripod, for everything you buy, and if you do the math right, you won't go broke. It's not the same math you do at a restaurant (How much money do I have in my pocket minus the price of the meal), but it's the same principle. The four basic arithmetic operators: +-*/.

It's rdiculous to whine about prices. They are there. Do the math, and come to your own conclusions. To me the answer is really simple.
 
taubkin said:
My dad always said, and I agree: I've never known anyone that has gone broke from eating well. People go broke from doing bad business.
Click to expand...

Or someone could go broke from a combo of the two... actually my uncle the husband of my mom's sister in my above story did go broke... why because he had to treat everyone when they went out to eat and he bought the most expensive things... so in the end he was doing bad business...

Look in the defense of the makers of camera equipment etc... yes I can see where some things cost more... it only makes sense... they have a smaller market... than in the normal consumer market... or how Tim Le put it also makes sense...

But again why if you want to conserve your money is that considering whinning... that is how you stay in business... and some times you take a gamble...

That is why I would be interested in the Red... I see a camera that could give me the production value of the big boys...

Arother way of putting it... I always see the glass half empty... a friend of mine never could understand my view point on this... by seeing the cup half empty... my goal was or still is how can I fill that cup... instead my friend always sees the cup half full and truth be told he cried when the cup got down to a 1/4 empty and cried more when the cup was empty... why did it go empty because he didn't have a plan...

Its just how you look at things...

So I look at the Red and I see a camera that if my early numbers means it'll cost me $65,000 for a good camera package and all the extra goodies in post... yes I could use still lens... but some times I rather get all the goodies from one company so when something doesn't work... they can't say hey its the other guys fault... even if I have to pay a few more dollars for such service...

So what I'm looking for is that I can sit back on my farm in Missouri... make my own little movies, the way I want too and by keeping tight reins on the budgets... my films will cost less to make... but with the Red my films will look like they cost more which means I make more money... and buy more land... or make a bigger movie next time...
 
Last edited:
My post was directed to a general complaint seen throughout this and other forums about how expensive pro gear is. Is just strikes me funny that someone has promised a $200K camera for $20K and people still complain.

By the way, my comments about it costing $50k for a decent 4K rig are still 100% true. I was not talking about jury-rigged systems with chinese VGA car-puter monitors shooting through $50 old Nikon still lenses. A good field set up for shooting 4K with a couple CINE lenses will still be around $50k....which, oh by the way, is by a MILE the cheapest solution out there for the foreseeable future.

I am not saying their cant be lower cost alternatives but, as Barry points out, if the market is there for a similar product at a lower price, someone will make it. Jim, as I have stated several times, is appealing to the "middlestream" of production. He is creating something priced in the low end of pro gear that has features found in much more expensive gear.


ash =o)
 
Last edited:
Its all about value for money and each of us put their own value on things. If the product seems to you to offer value for meony fine if not you don't buy it!

Some things are clearly overpriced others are clearly a bargain, all relative to what you can get that is similar. Red comes into the category of a bargain simply because the alternative or similar product is hugely expensive in comparison.

I love a bargain and so do many people :)

Michael
 
AshG said:
I am not saying their cant be lower cost alternatives but, as Barry points out, if the market is there for a similar product at a lower price, someone will make it. Jim, as I have stated several times, is appealing to the "middlestream" of production. He is creating something priced in the low end of pro gear that has features found in much more expensive gear.


ash =o)
Click to expand...

I agree...
 
Tim Le said:
That's the thing, professional film/video products aren't luxury items. They are tools used for the production of something: films.
Click to expand...

Yes, of course. But they're priced like luxury items. There are many markets where this is not true of professional tools, and there is no longer any technical reason why it should be the case in this market.

$1200 for a matte box simply does not represent the real cost to make that item, even including R&D costs and machining to whatever precision you'd like. You could have an expert craftsman hand make every one for less money than that, and I seriously doubt anyone is investing millions of dollars in R&D to stay on the cutting edge of matte box technology.

On some items, like lenses and camera bodies, the price might actually come closer to representing the real cost, but only because volumes are extremely low. The problem with this is, it becomes self-fulfilling. Volumes stay low because prices are high, prices stay high because volumes are low.

This probably used to make sense. Making cheap 35mm film cameras, lenses, etc. wouldn't have increased sales much, because film stock, processing, titling, etc. were all so expensive that even if equipment was much cheaper, not that many more people could afford to make 35mm movies. In other words, demand wouldn't have gone up much as prices came down.

The thing is, as video has started to get good enough to encroach on film, video camera vendors have taken their cues from the long-time players in the film camera business, assuming this would continue to be a high-cost, low-volume market. But with digital acquisition, there's no reason to assume that has to be the case anymore.

I think, and it looks like RED is betting, that a cheaper camera -- something sold closer to actual production costs -- will sell significantly more units, dropping the per-unit R&D cost to a much more reasonable level.

And this will create a larger and more competitive market for accessories, which will probably put an end to $1200 matte boxes. (Well, I'm sure someone will still sell them to the elitist types.)
 
Really good post Chris. I agree with what you're saying completely and think you really "get" the situation. I'll also add my two cents, starting with something you said earlier:

Chris Kenny said:
To use the example of the BMW 760Li at $118K... what if that was the standard price for a car, and your only alternative if you didn't have the money was to buy a go-kart for $10K, despite the fact that the technology was there for someone to make a real car for $20K?
Click to expand...
I think this is pretty much the point here - before RED, if you wanted the quality of film but the convenience of digital, what were your options? A Dalsa? A Genesis? A Viper? I think the chances of anyone here owning that kind of equipment are slim and none. And of course the reason is the price, not that people here aren't skilled enough to use the products.

I've always appreciated owning my own equipment as opposed to renting it - besides the fact that when you rent something, at the end of the day your money is gone and you have no investment, owning equipment allows you to shoot whenever and wherever you want, it keeps production costs down for your own projects as the money you would put into renting will eventually cover the cost of the gear that you've bought (and then you get to use it for free after that), and it also gives you the luxury of really getting to know your equipment inside out. If you're only renting a Cine Alta three or four times a year, how intimately are you really able to learn the subtle nuances of the gear?

Of course we've heard over and over (and over) that a camera doesn't make the film, that it's all about story and RED isn't going to revolutionize anything that you couldn't do before - but I will say that I think as the first digital camera that offers up a quality comparable to film and is priced in a range where people who make their living shooting can actually afford to invest in it - that is a big deal. I do think that RED is going to change things, either directly with their camera or indirectly by causing other manufacturers to get real and start producing more forward-thinking products at reasonable prices. As has also been stated a billion times, why buy a Varicam that tops out at 720 and shoots to tape for $60,000+ when you can get a red for a third of the price and do so much more? Sure, Red is a bit radical in its approach. But that's what it takes to get change started.

I don't think people have been complaining about the cost of the accessories as much as they have over the speculation of the cost of the accessories. As I said previously, there were a handful of people who thought that there was no way RED would sell their camera for under 60, 50, or even 40 thousand dollars. Now that we know what direction RED is taking, I'm surprised that those same people think that they're going to sell us a cage or rail system for $5,000 a pop. Even $2,000 each would be insanely high. Are we so tainted by the ridiculous markups that other companies thrust upon us that we now just accept what anything costs without any question? Brook Willard said it best;

"The rail and cage both appear to be nothing more than a few pieces of thoughtfully designed metal, carbon fiber, screws, joints and clamps. I don't mean to knock on the products - I think they're absolutely fantastic and they appear to be brilliantly designed. But - even with the strict tolerances required to make them very solid and resistant to wear - I see nothing in those parts that could justify a $1,500-$5,000 price tag."

Hard to disagree. Even though they could sell it for $5,000 if they wanted - in the very same way that there are $4,300 follow focus systems and $17,000 movietubes available - I don't think that it would be congruent with what RED has set out to accomplish. The silly thing is that right now it's all speculation anyway, as only Jim knows what the prices are going to be (and even he may be still figuring that information out). What good does it do to hypothesize that these products will cost an exorbitant amount, other than to send the message to the manufacturers that this is the price we're "expecting" to pay, so it's okay to charge us that much? Sorry, it's not okay. Thus, some of us will continue to defend the voice of sanity (what some call complaining).

Lastly, although your post was well-written, Barry, I don't think comparing a craftsman's tool to a hamburger or a car is applicable at all. While I appreciate what you were trying to demonstrate, any car (that works) is going to get me from point A to point B and any hamburger (assuming it isn't laced with ecoli) is going to alleviate my hunger. However, when you are making art, especially when it's your career, the quality of the tools you use absolutely make a difference. If they didn't, every big budget film would just be shot on DV and save the massive costs of shooting 35mm film. Your analogy would be more apropos if BMW suddenly started selling a car with more performance, value, and features than anything else they had ever sold before - but priced it at a sixth of their current best model. A lot of people would turn their heads, right? Well, it's no coincidence that RED has been getting a lot of attention lately. Are you going to buy that new super BMW, or stick with the competition who doesn't have nearly as good specs and yet still costs six times as much? As far as I'm concerned, it's a no-brainer.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Chris, take a Arri MB 20 and a Chrosziel Mattebox and take both on a longer shoot, then you know why Arri costs near the double as chrosziel. I am sure, if it would be so easy to build reliable cheap matteboxes there would be enough companies to do that ! All you have to know : a Rental Company normally spent more then the double of money a camera costs for the whole stuff around.
 
ludmux said:
Sorry Chris, take a Arri MB 20 and a Chrosziel Mattebox and take both on a longer shoot, then you know why Arri costs near the double as chrosziel. I am sure, if it would be so easy to build reliable cheap matteboxes there would be enough companies to do that ! All you have to know : a Rental Company normally spent more then the double of money a camera costs for the whole stuff around.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that more expensive stuff is better. But it's fallacious to conclude as a result that it necessarily costs all that much more to make. If you've got a product that's better than what the other guy is selling, you can charge more for it, and people will pay, even if you can make it for less than what the other guy can.

This is the year 2006. It frankly just doesn't cost all that much to machine most metals to acceptably tight tolerances for something like a matte box.
 
That's because crews beat the shi7 out of rental gear. You can treat your owned gear better and it will hold up longer. Chroziels are not as bulletproff as Arri, but the do just fine in real pro environments.

Also many classic and highly visual vilms have been shot on "$50" Nikon lenses, including Tim Burtons recent film "Corps Bride". Yes there are significant reasons to use cinema glass, but there is no reason not to start off with still glass and work your way up.
 
Chris Kenny said:
If you've got a product that's better than what the other guy is selling, you can charge more for it, and people will pay, even if you can make it for less than what the other guy can.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Exactly exactly exactly.

So what does it matter what it costs to produce it? How does that factor in? And, in fact, who cares?

The fact of the matter is that better products can sell for higher prices, because they are better.

If someone sees that there are tens of thousands of matteboxes being sold every day, and they believe they can make it better and sell it cheaper, well, that's what the free market economy is all about. Hence we now have the MatteBlox and the IndieSnap and the HysonFilms matteboxes, and I'm sure many more are on the way. Yet I still got a Vocas.

In a world of $4300 Follow Focus units we also have the Redrock FF, the CAVision, the FlyFocus, and the IndiFocus.

In a world of $1300 Kino Flos we get MattInSTL building lights, and FloLight, and CoolLites, and CaseLites.

When you have a problem that is solved by getting a professional piece of equipment, you get the piece that solves the problem. The only relevance that the cost of materials has is when you're planning on doing it yourself instead. For example, TC (on another post) decided to build his own computer. And he's extraordinarily frustrated and has torched 10 hours so far on the project. I'm sure he saved a few bucks, but for most of us we'll happily buy the product we need, as a turnkey solution, and have a warranty to go with it.

I have never once thought about what the true manufacturing cost is of the car I bought, or the telephone, or the books, or the cameras or the microphones or tripods or my house or anything else I've bought. What possible relevance does the cost of goods have (unless, of course, you're manufacturing it yourself...) In fact, the only time I've ever thought about the cost of something I've bought, it was that 70c McDonald's hamburger. I really don't see how they can raise the grain to feed the cow, process the cow, grow the wheat for the bun, bake it, buy or grow the pickles and buy or make the ketchup and the onions and the mustard, ship it all over the country, run the freezers and the slicers and the grills, pay the employees to transport and cook and assemble it, and then serve it up for seventy cents. I just don't see how that's possible.
 
Barry_Green said:
The fact of the matter is that better products can sell for higher prices, because they are better.
Click to expand...
Ah, but this is the key! "Can" sell for more doesn't mean they "must."

Jim has obviously found a way to create a 4K camera and maintain a profit (regardless of just what kind of profit is actually being made) while still keeping costs low (comparitively) for the customer. He could very well have charged twice as much for the camera and my guess is that he would probably still have sold quite a few of them. I don't think that's his goal with this project, however. He made the camera that he himself wanted to use, and he's sharing his result with as wide a professional user base as possible.

I know that a lot of people think that money is ultimately the main consideration that businesses (and heck, many individuals) do things. I'd like to think that not everyone is consumed with that concept and just want to further and better their world around them. Maybe Jim is in a unique position as he has a good deal of money to begin with and so he can "afford" to share. Whatever the reason, I don't subscribe to the philosophy that just because you "can" rape the customer, you "should." I think it's pretty clear that Jim doesn't either. I am grateful that there are still people like him around.
 
Tim Le said:
True, but you'll notice all the lower cost alternatives have compromises in either performance or build quality.
Click to expand...
Until now, yes - but that's where RED is breaking the mold (and why they're raising so much discussion in the process). When their camera ships, they will BE the "low cost alternative," and yet they offer more "performance" than anything remotely compared to what they're offering. I suppose build quality remains to be seen, but I can't imagine they're really going to fall flat on their faces in that department either. They are making changes to the "normal structure," and I do believe that this will have an impact on how other companies will have to do their business - even if it takes a few years to have an impact. I also think it should be a wake up call to consumers who just "settle" for what choices they are offered - especially when those choices cost a ridiculous amount of money.

Note that many of the "lower priced alternatives" that Barry listed have only come to market recently. Like Red, they're great choices, and it's fantastic to see "smaller guys" offer comparable solutions for products that are normally very costly. It is my hope that this trend will continue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top