The RED full-meal-deal?

[Chris Kenny]

Chris, I'm not trying to attack you but do you have a background in design and manufacturing? It's just people on here often assume things based on what they know or think they know instead of direct knowledge (like when people questioned how many bolts should hold the RED lens mount when probably none of them are engineers).

From my experience as a mechanical engineer in the aerospace industry which is similar to film production (low quantity, high performance, high reliability) I disagree that it doesn't cost all that much to machine high tolerance parts, at least not high quality machine shops in the USA. I also say there is no way an expert craftsman at $100/hr (burdened rate) would make (or even want to make) an individual mattebox in 12 hours and that is with no profit margin.

I'll admit, I don't have direct experience with this stuff. I'm basing my comments on what other manufacturers seem to be able to do in industries where there are more players, or where customers aren't all expected to have extremely deep pockets. Or, hell, look at RED. The stuff we're hearing now about accessories is the exact same stuff we were hearing about the camera itself in the not-too-distant past!

OK, the expert craftsman thing was a bit of hyperbole. At least if you're paying someone in the US.

I really, really doubt that a matte box has to me made to the same precision and reliability as a jet engine part or whatever. It doesn't operate under the same stresses, and people don't die if it breaks. Maybe a lens mount or a lens has to be made to a similar precision.

Anyway, the aerospace industry is largely funded by cost-plus government contracts, and doesn't have a whole lot of major players. In other words, like the film/video production market, there are significant factors other than the real cost of R&D and manufacturing that cause it to tend toward high prices.

 

[Haakon]

I hate to speculate how Jim and RED team are doing it since none of us really know, it but from my knowledge of developming products I can tell you it's not cheap. Okay, I can't help it...one logical speculation is he is absorbing most, some, or all of the development cost or delaying the break even point much later down the line.

You may be very right on this point, though there's nothing wrong with it. Like you've mentioned, he's not the first to do this - even in consumer electronics front, much ado has been made about the video game systems which take a huge hit up front in the goal of recouping investments through software down the line. And you're right, maybe not everyone does have the ability to operate on this kind of a business model... but I'm not going to knock it if Jim does. Red is doing a lot more for us than just offering usable 4K recording. I am happy to support their progress as they continue to blaze new paths and tear down common conceptions of the way things "should be."

 

[Barry_Green]

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.

Well, it's terminology like that that ruins the whole discussion for everyone. It goes from a reasonable discussion into "raping" the customer. If Jim's not "raping" the customer, then surely that means that the others ARE?

Come on. It's incendiarly language, and it's baseless. Unless you want to believe that there's a grand conspiracy of collusion behind all the major manufacturers and that they meet in secret meetings and decide who gets to rape the customer this month... The law of supply and demand, and the very nature of a free market economy, kind of laughs at that.

So how does RED do it? I don't know, I'm not privy to their business details, but they use one sensor and not three. That does away with prisms and beamsplitters and all that stuff, and returns us to the Bayer filter demosaic days. And they do away with a recording deck. A VariCam has a deck in it, a CineAlta has a deck in it, the Red doesn't. That's gotta cost something. Once upon a time people used to dismiss one-CCD bayer-filter camcorders, saying "it's gotta be 3CCD or it's not professional", but the Red is one chip. Where's the complaining? Yet undoubtedly he is able to deliver a much less expensive product by using one chip than if he used three. Then there's lenses -- is Red "raping" the customer because their zoom is $10,000 when you can buy an old Pentax zoom lens off ebay for $60? It's a different class entirely.

Let's not take it to the incendiary, please. Let's keep it on the level of: Red is building an entirely different type of camera than the other guys do. He's made it modular, he's made it upgradeable, and he's priced it low. But by pricing it low there are things you don't get -- like a recording deck built-in. And we don't know what service & support network they'll have. And apparently they won't have dealers either(?) but they'll all be sold direct. It's a different business model. We all in this forum fairly well laughed at the new Sony $200,000 model, but -- did anybody bother to notice that it has an HDCAM-SR deck built into it? That isn't cheap. I'm not saying it's worth 8 times as much as a RED(!) but I am saying that we should at least compare apples to apples and all-in.

If Red's business model works and meets with widespread success, you can pretty much guarantee that the "big boys" will try the same thing. If Red can afford to do it, they probably can too. But it would involve some serious rethinking about what type of products they make and how they deliver them to the customer. That's the true genius behind Red. It's not some big philanthropic venture, of that I'm very sure. It's a business model that is a radical departure from the status quo, offering a product that's a radical departure from the status quo. They have very clearly identified their target customer, and regardless of what others say I'm convinced that they have zoned in on a small niche market and are delivering the absolute dream product to that niche. They're not concerned about ENG or news shooters or home movies or any of that. They're making a Digital Cinema Camera. Not even a camcorder, just a camera head. And they've identified the compromises we're willing to live with (we don't need three chips as long as we get 1 massive chip with S35 DOF, for example) and they've done away with things that we don't need or even want, and as such they've honed in on exactly what we do want. And they're making a special-purpose product that fits our needs, and primarily (and perhaps only?) our needs. And doing so they've found that they can target our market quite effectively.

Jannard is a genius entrepreneur. He's not doing this out of a sense of philanthropy; Red isn't incorporated as a non-profit organization as far as I know. He intends to have this be a very successful, profitable business, one that can sustain his Red family of employees for years or decades to come. I'm sure he takes very seriously the commitments that have been mutually made between him, Stuart, Graeme, Ted and all the rest of the Red team.

 

[Haakon]

If Red's business model works and meets with widespread success, you can pretty much guarantee that the "big boys" will try the same thing.

It would've been nice if it hadn't taken RED to get them to do it, but yes, hopefully some more "big boys" will follow suit. Of course, by then many of us will be happily shooting with Red already.

Call it "conspiracy" or whatever you like, but I think that some other companies have certainly had their shot and chose the side of profits over progression. It's well documented already, and no, I don't want to go down that road either, so I'm happy to let it go. But it should be noted that it's just the way many big companies do business these days. I am glad to see someone putting their neck out there to challenge the status quo.

As for saving costs by using one chip, doing away with prisms, etc., that's something that RED doesn't own a patent on. If they've figured out a way to make everything work at a fraction of the cost, then all that can be said is that they've designed smarter, not harder. Even with the $1,000 "recording deck" the price still pales in comparison to anything else around it.

 

[taubkin]

I don't get it. Does anyone here think Jim Jannard is doing charity?

If his company is selling RED at 17K, it's because they feel they can sell more cameras and make more money than charging 25K for it. It's a business model, surely. It's always the same math, including charging the most money you think your average costumer is wiling to pay. Don't illude yourself, RED is 17K because that's how they feel they can be successful.

I'm happy they are doing this, because it fits my needs, but in no way, I'm going to say they are holy men for bringing this to the market. But I can respect them on the brilliant idea, and how they are conducting this, with clever direct marketing, mantaining their deadlines, and boldly building a product from scratch.

 

[Barry_Green]

Exactly, but as Haakon says, they're pushing it further than anyone has dreamed of. And that counts for a lot. They didn't just look at the existing market and say "pshaw, I could do a 2/3" 1080p camera for $10,000" and stop there. They went to 2k, they went to 4k, they went as far as (or further than) anyone was dreaming they would. That's why there's so much excitement, I think. It's because there's genuine vision behind it.

The other companies look at how they can cross-collateralize their product across different users -- sports shooters, ENG, whatever. Who needs a 4k news camera? This thing is aimed exactly where the company name says it is: Digital Cinema. And Jim found a combination of features and components that will get us where we want to go at a price that many of us can afford.

That's the genius behind it. Seeing further, and making the leap to get us there.

 

[taubkin]

They are bold, and they are incredibly competent. I truly admire them, but they are not saints!

 

[Lensmith]

I don't get it. Does anyone here think Jim Jannard is doing charity?

If his company is selling RED at 17K, it's because they feel they can sell more cameras and make more money than charging 25K for it.

Actually, they aren't selling any cameras yet. The price you quote is used to encourage people to reserve a future camera by paying a thousand bucks.

A simple question which might irritate some. Do you think if they were throwing around a higher number, and some of us feel more realistic price, closer to fifty or seventy thousand...would there be as many thousand dollar checks coming in to reserve a future purchase?

In my humble opinion, no.

I'm not saying this to slam anyone but I continue to see people talk about the price for this camera "body" and act like it's the end all price when it is anything but.

The fact is, there is no camera ready for sale and the total price for the camera will end up being well above the seventeen thousand dollars.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

they went as far as (or further than) anyone was dreaming they would.

As I was reading this I know its sounds crazy but I was hearing the old Star Trek theme in my head...

Going were no man has gone before...

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

A simple question which might irritate some. Do you think if they were throwing around a higher number, and some of us feel more realistic price, closer to fifty or seventy thousand...would there be as many thousand dollar checks coming in to reserve a future purchase?

If your talking that amount for the body... he'll have some major marketing problems to over come... I could see him say well for those who didn't put down the $1k... the price could jump to $19,500 but that would be okay in my book... because I don't want to be a beta tester...

But I do agree that some people keep throwing around the price of the body as if that's the price of the camera...

 

[D_and_G]

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...)

I agree with some of what you're saying Barry, but when I bought my most recent car, I did a comparative analysis of the cost of the car vs. similar priced models. Obviously, part of that total cost of sale is the manufacturing costs. Now, I don't get into specifics, but you do look at average quality, features, and reliability of the two manufactured products in a general way. And in the end, you can say that the mark up for car A (for example) doesn't equate with the same features for car B. So, I do think as consumers we are evaluating the value of manufactured goods, but we're doing it in the paradigm of the greater whole.

However, I don't think that voicing concerns about pricing is realistically effective, on a one to one basis . Indeed, the markets 'invisible hand' has more of an efficacy than individual consumers, IMHO. It's like water finding the quickest route through a valley. The problem is when there are artificial or cost-prohibitive barriers to entry. All of which is why I knew it would take a guy like Jim, who can take the large upfront costs of development (revolutionary 4K), without having to answer to the investors at initial expenditure. And he was free to innovate because he was starting at ground zero, and not beholden to a larger oligarchy. I'm sure he's pricing RED where it will have a long term effect on sales.

With the follow focus, I was just wondering why specifically (beyond the general -it's made better) it costs 4 times as much as the cavision, for example. I understand that it's a better product, overall. What I am concluding is that the market segment for cine follow focus will bear that price, because those affording cine lenses (probably) are willing to pay those prices for the features offered with the Arri . Perhaps the market is to small for the investiture of another company to make a follow focus of simillar quality at a much lower price point. The thing is, with Jim's camera there will be many more purchasers for a follow focus used with cine lenses, than the rareified high-cine crowd of today. Will that underserved market bear fruit of a different sort ?

Maybe with the migration of high end technology into the hands of the indies + variable shooters, the equation of supply and demand will shift enough to justify new companies and products to fill that growing niche. Perhaps, companies may make more profit on a volume basis than a price basis with the growth in the market (especially if new competition sees a profit margin there for the taking).

Personally, I hope there are entrepreneurs out there who will eat the lunch of any company that doesn't innovate, adapt to the market, and provide product based margins. I don't 'complain' about those that don't - I just vote with my wallet, and like water finding the best way through the valley, so do millions of others. It's the interval between the development of a new market and the companies that either adapt or are started to serve it, that is the true biaatch of the deal. We are stuck with a gap that needs to be filled, and have to wait on either the startups taking time to get to new products to market or older companies protecting their profit margins until it makes financial sense for them not too. I don't begrudge them protecting their margins. I just vote with my wallet - which is why Jim has my vote, so far.

I could have had a comparable Arri follow focus unit made so easily awhile ago, but instead I concentrated on the bigger picture. Now, that I want to own (and not rent) one, it seems like an oversight of sorts. Oh well, I'll adapt and/or support a company that does realize that this is an underserved market.

PS - I don't think bringing it out into the light is such a whining thing to do. Who knows ? There may be an enterepreneur on these boards that sees over 600 reservations, has a cliue about design, and a fabrication or factory shop. You never know :beer: :beer:



RED #'s rebel with a clue

 

[Gibby]

The other companies look at how they can cross-collateralize their product across different users -- sports shooters, ENG, whatever. Who needs a 4k news camera? This thing is aimed exactly where the company name says it is: Digital Cinema.

You made a statement like this on a previous thread, and I answered you with direct quotes from Jim Jannard (April 2 in my published interview with him), Stuart English (DVX User, 9/9/06), and a current page on the RED web site, that all express that though RED One is designed primarily as a digital cinema camera, that RED has intentionally designed RED One with modularity, and a variety of lens formats, and image formats, to enable it to be used in a huge variety of production genres, many of which are not digital cinema. In fact, Jannard, English, and the current RED web site all acknowledge additional RED use as an EFP/ENG style camera. So Barry Green says RED One is just for the narrow niche of digital cinema, but Jannard, English, and the RED web site all mention additional EFP/ENG-style uses intended for RED users. Here’s a link to that thread and those quotes from Jannard, English, and the RED web site, so readers of this thread can draw their own conclusions on who to believe on this issue: Green or Jannard/English/RED web site.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=70801&page=5


After I posted those quotes on that thread, you backed off from your digital cinema exclusivist position and took the position that perhaps RED should clarify their position on the issue. They don’t need to. Their own quoted statements, the fact that the RED web site has not dropped the reference, and the fact that the RED team reads this board, including that particular thread, and have chosen not to come out with a “we’re exclusively a digital cinema camera and nothing else” statement ought to tell you something. Since when is 1080i a digital cinema format? You’re seldom wrong on posts, but on this exclusively digital cinema, no ENG (style) position you are wrong. I’ve had my finger closely on the pulse of the development of the RED One camera system since day one. I have an extremely accurate handle on the thinking of the RED One design team. It is named a digital cinema camera because that is it’s marquee intended market, but it has been intentionally made modular and flexible in design so that depending on the accessories and lenses you use, and image format you choose, it can morph into a good camera for a myriad of professional uses, including EFP/ENG style (HDTV, sports, documentaries, events, etc.). Nobody needs a 4k news camera, but you’re missing the whole point of the RED One camera. It can be accessorized and lensed for effective use in almost any industry. If some shooters just shoot in a narrow range of digital cinema genres, fine, but there are huge numbers of us who shoot regularly in a broad array of digital cinema, cine-style, and EFP/ENG style genres, and digital cinema exclusivist claims about RED just don’t give us the consideration we deserve as ground floor members of the RED family of reservationists.

It's tapping into this broader potential user base that will go a long way in determining RED's fiscal success or failure. There are a lot more multi-genre shooters in the marketplace than strictly digital cinema shooters.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

 

[DrizztG]

If some shooters just shoot in a narrow range of digital cinema genres, fine, but there are huge numbers of us who shoot regularly in a broad array of digital cinema, cine-style, and EFP/ENG style genres, and digital cinema exclusivist claims about RED just don’t give us the consideration we deserve as ground floor members of the RED family of reservationists.

Gibby
RED #8
www.cut4.tv
www.4umat.com

:thumbup:

 

[Homersapien]

I'd have to agree with Gibby, the genius in the camera is not that it is just a cinema camera but it could infact replace many types of cameras. This is what opens it up to camera operators such as DVX and HVX users rather than for example ARRI users. It gives options for shooting at different levels but also promises the ability to shoot a motion picture if you can gain access to the necessary accessories to do so, it is that prospect that is the major selling point of the camera in my opinion. I know that I won't have all of the equipment from the offset to shoot a motion picture but at the same time I know I will be able to shoot material that could easily be better than many of the popular cameras such as the HVX from the get go.

 

[donatello]

"why specifically (beyond the general -it's made better) it costs 4 times as much as the cavision, for example"

the arri and other cinema type follow focus will last years .. put a cavision in a rental house and lets see how long it last ??? i don't know about cavision but the more $$ ones last many many years ....

now if you are the owner/user of your camera and accessories you can probabaly use lower cost follow focus/matt box/tripod etc and it will all work good for years.. because you are right there with the equipment most persons will be very gentle with your package .. however if you are not there you can forget that "very" gentle , the rental market is tough on all equipment .. i tend to be very careful with my/friends equipment .. rental items i'm careful ( notice the VERY is dropped) ..

 

[D_and_G]

the arri and other cinema type follow focus will last years .. put a cavision in a rental house and lets see how long it last ??? i don't know about cavision but the more $$ ones last many many years ...

Cool. I don't intend on renting out the follow focus I buy anyway. In fact, I don't know if I'll rent my camera out at all, except to a very few select people, and probably have myself hired as a DIT/babysitter along with it. Probably won't have to many takers, in that case. :beer: If I can get the same functionality from a cavision as an Arri, 'within reason', than I'll be willing to pay 1/4th the price for it not to be rugged enough for rental.

Still, like I said in my previous post, I hope there is such an upsurge in demand for a cine follow-focus with the migration of quality lenses and cameras into lower price brackets (hypothetically), that some companies fill the niche...

BTW - I don't need it to last for many many years - just long enough for me to make a bucketload of money and satisfy my artistic needs. Who knows ? I might follow Jim's lead, and as a user, decide to design and market one for 1/4 the the price. And with the same functionality (ie. eat Arri's lunch).
It's like Ross Perot said, when they asked him about why he started his software company, as compared to hardware, which was the big money maker at the time. (laughing) "They're just crumbs under the table, Ross". He replied, "those crumbs look pretty good to me". A few billion later...

:beer: :beer:



RED # 's rebel with a clue

 

[Haakon]

A simple question which might irritate some. Do you think if they were throwing around a higher number, and some of us feel more realistic price, closer to fifty or seventy thousand...would there be as many thousand dollar checks coming in to reserve a future purchase?

In my humble opinion, no.

Of course not; the more inexpensive something is, the more takers there are going to be. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

I'm not saying this to slam anyone but I continue to see people talk about the price for this camera "body" and act like it's the end all price when it is anything but.

The fact is, there is no camera ready for sale and the total price for the camera will end up being well above the seventeen thousand dollars.

Everyone here is well aware of the fact that the camera is not ready for sale yet. I will say to you the same thing I've said on several other boards; they are being very open about their development plans and being gracious enough to share that progress with us as they go along. If you feel there is no point in discussing a camera that is not "for sale" yet, then please don't read these forums. The RED team has said that they welcome input for their camera, and that is what these kinds of discussions exist for.

As far as the "total price," that argument has been beaten to a pulp as well. All you need to get started shooting with Red (and that includes full 4K recording) is a recording storage device and a lens. They have said multiple times that the drives will be available for under $1,000 (and for a 2 1/2" laptop hard drive, they ought to be), and one can use the wealth of Nikon stills available which can be readily had for well under $1,000 each. That puts total ownership of a working, 4K RED solution at under $20,000. That's a pretty good deal if you ask me.

Certainly one can add $4,000 matteboxes, $8,000 tripods (I actually saw one guy's list on CML that suggested that was "necessary" for working with Red!), and anything else you can think of - but it's not mandatory. Even if you DID "pimp" out your Red camera and spent a good $40,000 - $50,000 on a "complete package," you'd still be well under the cost of a Varicam or F900 - and let's not forget that the selling prices on those cameras don't include a lens, mattebox, or tripod either! Just as you say it's an unfair notion to believe you can "get into Red for $17,500," it's just as unfair to say you can get into a Varicam for $65,000. Gotta compare apples to apples. When you do, you'll see that Red is an incredible (almost unbelievable) value.

 

[Barry_Green]

So Barry Green says RED One is just for the narrow niche of digital cinema, but Jannard, English, and the RED web site all mention additional EFP/ENG-style uses intended for RED users. Here’s a link to that thread and those quotes from Jannard, English, and the RED web site, so readers of this thread can draw their own conclusions on who to believe on this issue: Green or Jannard/English/RED web site.

Don't know what particular bug got in your cereal, but that's a rather confrontational stance to take.

In any case, look -- yes Jim five months ago said "sure, ENG, everybody." But how many times has he said "things have changed"? How many times has he said "things are different"? How many times has he said "yeah, that was last month, wait till you see what we've gone and done now"?

I've been wrong before (most recently with the prediction that the FX7 wouldn't be HDV) so I'm glad to be proven wrong. But the fact is that all the evidence points to this philosophy: they're making the best digital cinema camera they can (or anyone can). They are not making the best ENG camera they can. They are not making the best news camera they can.

I don't expect Jim to come out here and say "now hold on a minute, of course you can't use this for news or for home movies." Why would he? Why would he turn away potential market?

But look -- you could use an F900 for ENG if you wanted. I would call it massive overkill and a misuse of the basic purpose of the product (just like I'd say that using a school bus as your daily transportation would be massive overkill and a misuse of its basic purpose). Doesn't mean it wouldn't work. Sure you could drive a school bus to and from work every day, but that ain't what it's designed for, and that's most certainly not what it's optimized for.

Since when is 1080i a digital cinema format?

Ever seen any Japanese-market made-for-TV movies? They're all 1080i. We on this side of the pond don't care for the look, but that's the way it is. And let's not forget that the leading digital cinema camera out right now, the F900, also does 1080i.

but on this exclusively digital cinema, no ENG (style) position you are wrong.

Maybe. Been wrong before. But I really, really don't think so. Not this time.

Trying to be all-things-to-all-people is a recipe for business failure. I do not see RED failing. They're way too smart. They know exactly what they're doing, and how they're doing it. And who they're doing it for.

Look, I'm a defender of ENG/EFP/Wedding uses on this board; sometimes people really seem to think that the only purpose of a video camera is to shoot "movies". I am frequently the only voice out there saying "excuse me, but there are lots of very valid purposes for video cameras, and "movies" is only one of them, and probably the least financially rewarding."

But I'm saying that I don't think the RED is being optimized for other purposes. It is optimized to be a digital cinema camera. Regardless of what public figures say, just look at the product and realize that it is what it is.

Now, with that said, will someone be able to shoot ENG on it if they really want to? Of course. Heck, news was shot on Filmo 16's for decades. Would anyone in their right mind reach first for a Filmo 16 to shoot news today? Of course not. It COULD be done, but there are other tools much better designed for the task.

Actions speak louder than words. Their words may say "sure you could use RED for home movies" but their actions are to eliminate auto-iris, eliminate auto-focus, and hone in with razor-sharp precision on the features that matter to cinema shooters. Appropriate for EFP? Of course; what is EFP anyway -- it's digital cinema on a budget! Appropriate for ENG? Maybe, but there are probably better tools for that. Appropriate for home movies? Heck, there are people who drive a Hummer as their daily car, so maybe they'll use a Red for home movies too.

I'm not saying you can't use it any old way you want. But I am saying that any additional uses are not their main focus. And I'll continue to believe that until Jim Jannard himself makes some announcement or other to clarify the company position in some way other than what the obvious direction they're taking the product in dictates. Until then I'll continue to look at his actions -- choosing CML (the Cinematography Mailing List) and DVXUser (the #1 filmmaking site on the web) and sites like that as his chosen venues of interacting with people. Unless I'm mistaken, I doubt he's been hanging out on ENGNewsShooters.com or some other site. The guy is an artist who creates incredible images. He's designing a tool for artists who want to create incredible images.

If someone wanted to buy a Dodge Viper to deliver pizzas with, I doubt anyone would stop 'em. Certainly not Dodge; if a buyer said "could I deliver pizzas in this car?" the salesman would say "of course you could." And you could. But that's not what it was designed for.

The Viper was designed with the Corvette squarely in its crosshairs, and to nip at the heels of the 911. I sincerely doubt that the Chevy Aveo (an ultimate pizza delivery car) was on the target design sheet.

The Red One is designed to obliterate the Dalsa Origin, the Genesis, and the Viper. I sincerely doubt the DSR400 (an ENG camera through-and-through) was ever mentioned around the design/discussion roundtables.

If some shooters just shoot in a narrow range of digital cinema genres, fine, but there are huge numbers of us who shoot regularly in a broad array of digital cinema, cine-style, and EFP/ENG style genres, and digital cinema exclusivist claims about RED just don’t give us the consideration we deserve as ground floor members of the RED family of reservationists.

Nobody's saying you won't find it useful. All I'm saying is that it's not aimed at ENG genres. If it was it'd at the bare minimum have auto-iris, auto white balance, auto level control, auto picture gain, a servo zoom rocker lens, and all the other accoutrements that make for a great ENG camera. It doesn't. Why? The answer's obvious.

If you want to use it for whatever purpose, feel free. Go right ahead. But just like the XLH1 -- people want to think it was designed for indie filmmaking. That's about the last thing it was designed for. That thing is designed as a live feed news-studio camera, with HD-SDI, TC/IN and TC/OUT and GenLock. It's obvious what it's designed for. Pressing it into indie cinema circles and trying to record the HD-SDI output (which doesn't even have embedded audio or timecode, fer cryin' out loud) is certainly a stretch and is not what that camera was designed for. Put the XLH1 in a live switched HD-SDI news studio or game show or talk show, use the Console software to control it remotely including all sorts of remote CCU functions, and it'll shine. Put it in an indie filmmaking environment and you'll curse it more than praise it. It'd be a fish out of water. It could DO the job with its 1080/24F, but that ain't what it's made for, that's not where it shines.

It's tapping into this broader potential user base that will go a long way in determining RED's fiscal success or failure. There are a lot more multi-genre shooters in the marketplace than strictly digital cinema shooters.

I don't disagree. There are reasons the HVX shoots 60i and has a tape drive, even though the filmmaker guys here complain about it. There are reasons the DVX offered 60i. The non-cinema shooters are the guys making the bucks -- weddings, events, sports, VNR, etc.

But RED isn't DESIGNED for that. It's designed for digital cinema. You can press it into those services if you want, but just because that's what you want it to be, that doesn't mean that that's what it *is*. Just look at what it is. The answer's obvious.

And hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But I'm not.

 

[Haakon]

And hey, if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

But I'm not.

Haha, that one actually gave me a good chuckle. Sorry Gibbs, but I've got to agree with Barry on this one - it's pretty clear which direction the Red guys are going. I also agree that it is good that they've "honed in" on a particular area of shooting; trying to be all things for all people rarely (if ever) works. On the upside, it looks like what they are doing, they're doing quite well.

 

[T40T]

The key is for Jim and Ted to price such that RED is profitable enough that customers are taken care of, and the future of the company is assured.

Purchasing this camera, lenses, and so on, is taking all of my financial resources. Plus fundraising. However nothing on the market today is even close, financially or technically, to allowing me to shoot the documentary I want to shoot.

So at 47 I'm betting everything I've got, one more time.

I'm counting on Jim and Ted setting prices high enough - not too low in other words - that after the initial development funding is over and they're running on sales, RED has enough profit that Red Digital Cinema Company is organized around taking care of the concerns of shooters. Period.

It isn't that I especially want to pay more. But a profitable company that isn't scraping by, is very much in my best interests. In fact, the more profitable RED is, the better positioned it is both to support what its got going, and to jump-start new revolutions.

Red does NOT need to make a profit. at least in year one. Jim's probably got enough money to use Red as a loss leader. The point being to throw a monkey wrench into the plans of it's competitors, driving the price down for ALL high end HD cameras. The purpose being to further democratize the film industry, enabling lower budget independents to compete better with big studio films. He seems like the kind of rebel multimillionare (probably not billionare, but I don't know) to want to do something like this. Red can make money eventually by creating affection and loyalty among independent film makers, just like Apple does, and by selling volume.