Cost of RedCine if not buying a camera?

T

Thomas Mathai

Active member
What would RedCine cost for those who want to provide post production support, but not interested in buying a camera?

Also is there an SDK going to be released?
 
Chris Kenny said:
I would hope it would be free. It's going to be a major inconvenience in the renal market if it's not.
Click to expand...

my 2 cents:

i have the opposite opinion. i would like that it is licensed to the camera-owner or rental shop. one could make more money if one can rent out the redcine software as well.

also, customers always are much more sloppy and show less respect towards "things that doesn´t cost". they WILL need AND want support. If the redcine is free, many clients will expect that they get support etc for free. If it does cost, and be it only symbolic $199 for a network license, they WILL rent it out and will pay for training and supervision. if its free to everyone, they won´t and will try to exploit your knowhow for free.

Also, if its free: untrained people will mess around with the source footage. results of that will be certainly suboptimal. that will reduce the public opinion of the red camera. ("i tested it with redcine, results were bad" goes the uninformed used-it-once-as-its-free greenhorn).

so my vote is: don´t make it free to anyone. i don´t think that red will prosecute people who use it here and there and didn´t buy it. but from a marketing/political/control/value for buying customers perspective a completly free redcine software would not bring advantages - only disadvantages.
 
laguun said:
my 2 cents:

i have the opposite opinion. i would like that it is licensed to the camera-owner or rental shop. one could make more money if one can rent out the redcine software as well.

also, customers always are much more sloppy and show less respect towards "things that doesn´t cost". they WILL need AND want support. If the redcine is free, many clients will expect that they get support etc for free. If it does cost, and be it only symbolic $199 for a network license, they WILL rent it out and will pay for training and supervision. if its free to everyone, they won´t and will try to exploit your knowhow for free.

Also, if its free: untrained people will mess around with the source footage. results of that will be certainly suboptimal. that will reduce the public opinion of the red camera. ("i tested it with redcine, results were bad" goes the uninformed used-it-once-as-its-free greenhorn).

so my vote is: don´t make it free to anyone. i don´t think that red will prosecute people who use it here and there and didn´t buy it. but from a marketing/political/control/value for buying customers perspective a completly free redcine software would not bring advantages - only disadvantages.
Click to expand...

everything you said is complete speculation and bad assumptions. When people receive software for free they absolutely do not expect support for free. The only support they would expect is online help from other users. I would understand if Red wanted to charge for the software but I don't think anyone is going to be happy having to pay for this extra expense.

I preordered 5 cameras to rent out and I expect my clients will be very annoyed if they will either have to bring me the footage to get it converted or have to buy the software themselves so that they could edit it. I cannot rent out the software to them because once they have it installed on their systems they have it for good, it would go against licensing laws.

I have the biggest problem with what you said last:
people who have footage to begin with from this camera will be nowhere near "untrained" (remember you need to have access in some way to the camera to get footage from it.) To think that making the software cost money will deter untrained people to use the program is ridiculous not to mention that some of the most unique work and ideas that comes out of the video/cinema world is from independent filmmakers that don't have a lot of money. The whole idea of this camera is putting powerful professional equipment into the hands of people who might not have a lot of money but who's ideas matter just as much as a "professionals". The public opinion of red would only be better if it wasn't in the hands of only the privileged.
 
If I pay more than $100 bucks for a piece of software I'm sure as hell going to expect some support.

I think your argument is backwards. Why would people expect assitance for something they're getting for free? But then sit back and just accept problems they might encounter because they payed for it. Your argument boggles my mind.

I want it to be free, because I don't want to have to rent software. You can't work without it, and some of us aren't planning on purchasing the camera. That means in order for me to work at my "when I can get around to it" pace, I'll pay $17.5k in rental fees just for REDCine.


I use tons of free software in my production pipeline. I give away tons of free software and tools I developed for our pipeline. REDCine isn't some generic tool, it's a RED Camera Driver essentially.

If anything I would expect at least a free version to Convert from RAW to useable formats with a super duper proxy/EDL/automated deluxe copy for a few more clams. But I see this as unlikely because RED isn't trying to get into the support business, and the moment they make us pay for something they know they're going to have to back it up. They can't tag on the obligatory "Use at your own risk" disclaimer when someone pays for it.
 
I would think that charging a rental fee for a free piece of software would likely be a violation of whatever copyright there might end up being in place.

Jason
 
egproductions said:
The whole idea of this camera is putting powerful professional equipment into the hands of people who might not have a lot of money but who's ideas matter just as much as a "professionals". The public opinion of red would only be better if it wasn't in the hands of only the privileged.
Click to expand...

I think exactly the same, and that is why I want to rent this camera as cheap as possible, so people that use to shoot with low cost HD Camera will either shoose to shoot with RED I.

About the REDCINE, I fully understand your worry, and I had some similar trouble with the footage coming out of the panasonic P2 of the HVX...
I agree that it would be better that REDCINE is a freeware, if it is an obligation to have it to use the camera footage.
 
egproductions said:
everything you said is complete speculation and bad assumptions.
Click to expand...
no. years and years of experience with rental customers & typical postproduction scenarios for fullfeature.

egproductions said:
When people receive software for free they absolutely do not expect support for free. The only support they would expect is online help from other users.
Click to expand...
to give you examples.
marketleading NLE hardwares, example SD matrox digisuite, example HD blackmagic. Both have free codecs.

guess who they gonna call if orginated files don´t work.

egproductions said:
I would understand if Red wanted to charge for the software but I don't think anyone is going to be happy having to pay for this extra expense.
Click to expand...
don´t get me wrong. i think its a good idea to include redcine to the package for any buyer. i think it would be good if the license allow for use of 3hrd partys.

but:

i don´t think that you want
- the typical 38294934 postproduction people who -will- download it searching for support @ red,
- the "filmsnob" saying "yes, i use redcine-its trash as the digital camera" simply because he doesn´t understand it or doesn´t want a digital camera,
- the producer calling you because "_YOUR_ files don´t work with _OUR_ (free) software".
- the newbie who says "Oh! The (P2/XDCAM/RED/whatever he tryied) The workflow is soooo unfunctional and slow, the quality is bad (because he choose the wrong target codec) and it always crashes!"
- Manymany other scenarios.

We have been through all of them. often. That doesn´t happen to that amount if software costs at least an symbolic price for non-owners of the camera.

egproductions said:
I preordered 5 cameras to rent out and I expect my clients will be very annoyed if they will either have to bring me the footage to get it converted or have to buy the software themselves so that they could edit it.
Click to expand...
Don´t get me wrong. I say: "give redcine to owners of RED, let them have their clients use it. don´t give it away for free to any nay-sayer/newbie."

Anyone who will use will need a camera. if the redcine is in the package they have the software and can -to a certain degree- control who does what with it. if anyone can just mess around with you will see bad press. if this "anyone" at least has to pay $$ or $$$ he will be much more motivated to take use of the software. And as long you can allow for free/rent out the software and/or service in alignement with reds software license, you get the best out of both worlds.

We, btw, ordered 2, and rent out 35mil, cinealta and P2 HD workflows. We have -many- free codecs to support (decklink) and some who cost money. Guess which ones make the external AfterFX graphics guy call the camera departement asking how to install quicktime 6.5.2.1c and then later "IT SCREWED MY FCP!!!"

egproductions said:
I cannot rent out the software to them because once they have it installed on their systems they have it for good, it would go against licensing laws.
Click to expand...
No, there are many licensing contracts who allow such scenarios. Good example would be hamlet vidscope.

egproductions said:
I have the biggest problem with what you said last:
people who have footage to begin with from this camera will be nowhere near "untrained" (remember you need to have access in some way to the camera to get footage from it.)
Click to expand...
knock on wood, our experience is different. it can be amazing how far files can travel...

egproductions said:
To think that making the software cost money will deter untrained people to use the program is ridiculous not to mention that some of the most unique work and ideas that comes out of the video/cinema world is from independent filmmakers that don't have a lot of money.
Click to expand...
This indeed is a good reason why the software should be able to be rented out, also for free, by the ones who own red.

egproductions said:
The whole idea of this camera is putting powerful professional equipment into the hands of people who might not have a lot of money but who's ideas matter just as much as a "professionals". The public opinion of red would only be better if it wasn't in the hands of only the privileged.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. The whole idea is to build a -really good- digital camera at a non-mono/duopolistic price point.

you will still need minimum ~30-80K additional gear. that is, if your actors & crew, location etc are all for free.

btw. i wouldn´t mind if there is a free viewer etc. but the redcine software which is about critcal quality, huge amounts of data, important crossroads for the workflow - that one should at least have a symbloic $$ or $$$ price point for non-owners of red
 
Considering the REDCine is pretty much RED Camera specific and also pretty much mandatory initiially it would seem kind of rediculous to make it optional/expensive.

Wait... rediculous is the wrong word... hold on a second it's coming to me... oh yeah Extortion. ;)

"Bet you would really like to use that footage you shot... wellll it's going to cost ya!"
 
In defense of making conversion software freely distributable: If I were to rent a Red and shoot my film on it, I would damn well expect to get all the original footage for archival purposes. That means I need to archive the necessary software along with the footage.

Furthermore, you'd want post facilities, film-recording facilities, and other service providers to have universal access to customers' Red footage. Making conversion software freely available helps ensure that this happens.

We've seen attempts to withhold necessary software from hardware customers. Olympus used to try to charge customers for software to transfer pictures from its digital cameras. This is now largely irrelevant (since anyone with the slightest knowledge uses a $5 card reader), but talk about offensive to the customer. And we all know how Panasonic has (not) served the majority of computer users on the planet by failing to release a DV100 codec for Windows. Thankfully Red pledges not to make this same mistake.

So you can argue that Red would be reasonable in charging for the software to defray its development costs or potential support costs, but arguing that it would actually be GOOD for customers doesn't hold water so far.
 
laguun I could respond to you previous rebuttle with a post that is equally long telling you why what you had just said is wrong once again, however, I think the general red fanclub has spoken as to what they would like see happen.
 
I'm fairly sure I read somewhere that it would be a free license that you can distribute... I could be wrong but I swear I read that.

If Redcine was going to be a replacement for color correction and or editing then yes I'd agree that it'd be worth selling it seperately but my understanding has always been that it was the method used to import the raw footage and export it with some extra features. As such the widespread distribution is a fundamental tool to the success of Red One. To charge people for it would only hamper the camera and in the long run RedCine itself. Someone would create a freeware substandard version for clients to use and Red would lose out either way. Development of the Software is paramount to the sales of Red Hardware which is where they will make their way in the market.
 
Maybe I missed something in this discussion, but I wonder if people are confusing and blending license expectations of the codec with the application... REDCODE vrs. REDCINE?

A case could be made (and probably is) for handling the two differently. I imagine REDCODE will be freely distributed to all, while REDCINE is either included with the camera, or purchased separately by post folks...

Regards
 
I'm not confusing the two because to my knowledge the only application we'll be able to de-mosaic our footage in will be REDCine. With still photography there'sdozens of applications which allow us to convert our RAW photos, but I don't expect that to be the case with REDCode RAW.

I could live without the REDCodec, it sounds like a nice and promising working format but I need the ability to convert my RAW to RGB.
 
Unless every last one of my brain cells is somewhere on the floor of this edit bay (possible, I'll grant you), I seem to remember one of the Red Team guys (probably Stuart or Graeme) claiming quite a bit of functionality in the RedCine software solution. Color space, gamma, and other serious image processing and of course the all important ability to spit out industry standard formats. I suppose that as long as Red data is the only input format it deals with then giving it away for free is no big deal. I am looking forward to hearing what the policy will be on this issue. The fact that nobody on the Red Team has commented so far makes me wonder just how difficult it must be to navigate the myriad issues of access, intellectual property rights, quality control and others that have been discussed in this forum. Whatever licensing scheme they choose, IMHO, Jim has shown throughout this endeavor that he will treat us the way he would want to be treated. That's all I need.

Blair S. Paulsen
RedOne #19
 
egproductions said:
laguun I could respond to you previous rebuttle with a post that is equally long telling you why what you had just said is wrong once again, however, I think the general red fanclub has spoken as to what they would like see happen.
Click to expand...
it seems that i am all alone in my minority....

anyhow, my vote is clear.

- network licenses for the owners
- 3hrd party users should pay a -very low- price, a) just to make clear that it is worth something and b) negatively biased people stay out of the game
- free rental/sublicense granted by the license contract for red-owners.

i don´t see any disadvantage in this, especially as it would bring more business to any house owning red. and after all, it would be your decision to allow your rental customers free use.

but i will rest my case here :)
 
Think of RedCine as the developing lab, to "develop" your Red footage into something useful. As such it will have the tools needed to convert the RAW data into a digital "negative" and do the basic things to it that any film developer lab has, such as gamma, white levels, and basic colour correction so that your "print" comes out as close as possible to how you wanted it developed. As such it'll no doubt have the same sort of flexibility to tweak a few things that people do to film to give certain basic looks, but beyond that you'll colour grade properly (or artistically I guess) once you begin the edit/NLE/CC process in post.

Think of RedCine as the C41 film developing machine which gives you nice prints of your still photos from the negative, except translate it into full motion digital "film" instead. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top