On the Gravy Train with.... Equipment Overkill!

keylight

keylight

Veteran
An Arri? Really? To me this is TOTAL and GROSS overkill. Did they really need that caliber and quantity of gear for such a basic shoot? It's really quite obscene. To clarify, I'm not saying the state shouldn't spend money on tourism advertising. But the kind of money they had to have spent on that one shoot alone? That disgusts me.

But hey, when the state pays the bills, why not? It's not like the money could be used for better things.....

 
While I see your point, this is a marketing expense for a national and likely international campaign for a huge brand. Looking cheap isn't the goal, and if done right the funds brought in from tourism related taxes and economic growth would pay for this shoot with enough left over to repave your street. I'm sure the producers were well aware of the cost and cut what they could, but this isn't the kind of thing you want done on a tight budget.

The post above I agreed with until reading that this is a hot springs area at one of their parks, and the people who can afford to choose what state they go to for vacation are probably looking for higher class activities than I am.
 
Cassius said:
While I see your point, this is a marketing expense for a national and likely international campaign for a huge brand. Looking cheap isn't the goal, and if done right the funds brought in from tourism related taxes and economic growth would pay for this shoot with enough left over to repave your street. I'm sure the producers were well aware of the cost and cut what they could, but this isn't the kind of thing you want done on a tight budget.

The post above I agreed with until reading that this is a hot springs area at one of their parks, and the people who can afford to choose what state they go to for vacation are probably looking for higher class activities than I am.
Click to expand...

Of course there's a lot of expense for national/international spots. But most of that is for buying space. I'll bet the producers were well aware of the total budget for the campaign, and priced their services based on a percentage of that budget, regardless of whether they needed to or not.

Perhaps this is more a case of the producers getting lazy. I suspect a lot of people on these boards could do a lot more with a lot less. But they had the coin to spend on the best gear, so why not, right?

Who knows, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the contract was put out for competitive bids and they came in with the lowest price. If that's the case, I'm moving to Arkansas!

Here's a link to other videos the tourism board has done in the past. I'll bet the shots in the BTS video are 2 seconds worth of some future spot.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ArkansasTourism/videos
 
That doesn't really look like a crazy budgeted spot. They rented three cameras, a dolly and assorted gear, and shot in a nice backyard for a one day shoot?
 
I agree with Rob...doesn't look that crazy to me. Impressing the client is crucial when working on higher end jobs. Equipment costs were probably a mere fraction of this spot - regardless of how large the spot was.

Kegan
 
Plus injecting money in the business you are working in? I don't see any problem to that -- other than the fact that you or I were not hired for it ;)

I've seen/worked on bigger for dumber products...
 
Phenixone said:
Plus injecting money in the business you are working in? I don't see any problem to that -- other than the fact that you or I were not hired for it ;)

I've seen/worked on bigger for dumber products...
Click to expand...

Like I said, maybe I should move to Arkansas....
 
Hey, I know a hospital that spent 5K on a couple of bubba's that came in with a Sony EX3 and a lighting kit. These guys clearly knew nothing about sound or lighting. The end product DVD was hilarious with shadows that looked cartoonish, color and lighting changed in every vignette, and the sound quality varied from clip to clip. They did deliver that DVD 30 days after the shoot. State of the art standard definition too!

An Arri to film a party? Who knew? Maybe the crew got a good rate on the rental.
 
Who was directing... the AC?

Looked like the "talent" (kids) were showing off with how hard they could swing a pool noodle.
 
I'm with you on this one. I think that what they achieved here could have been done with so much less. Some people don't understand that yet, though. I had a woman tell me last year that $25,000 probably wouldn't even buy me a camera to start a video production business with. I somehow managed to contain my laughter. $25,000 might not buy me an Arri or Red camera, but it would easily put me ahead of a lot of other aspiring film makers. That said, if I were a taxpayer in the state footing the bill for this shoot, I might be a little bit upset.
 
ASchear said:
I'm with you on this one. I think that what they achieved here could have been done with so much less. Some people don't understand that yet, though. I had a woman tell me last year that $25,000 probably wouldn't even buy me a camera to start a video production business with. I somehow managed to contain my laughter. $25,000 might not buy me an Arri or Red camera, but it would easily put me ahead of a lot of other aspiring film makers. That said, if I were a taxpayer in the state footing the bill for this shoot, I might be a little bit upset.
Click to expand...

You're so right about putting $25K in the hands of aspiring filmmakers. The state could have spent a lot less and probably gotten a lot more.

Years ago I worked for a large Fortune 500 company. They routinely paid a local "favorite" producer (who was nothing more than an individual with an office who hired others to actually do the work) $15,000 a pop to shoot talking head interview pieces. I kid you not. Then someone at the company wised up, hired me, and I put together a small team and moved most production in house. (I'm not saying hiring me was how they wised up - I'm saying moving stuff in house is how they wised up.) With salaries, overhead, equipment, and expendables all factored in, by the end of 1 year the cost of talking head videos dropped to a few thousand dollars. And the cost of doing large projects (that sometimes meant hiring extra crew and talent) dropped by similar amounts. For one big project, we actually had to bid against the outside "favorite" producer. No competition - we won easily.

Our work was high quality and reasonably priced. We used good equipment (far from the best) and delivered results that rivaled or exceeded the work from the outside producer.

I eventually left that company and moved to another one, where I did something similar, except this time we continued to use the same favored outside vendor for much of the production work, although at greatly reduced prices than what we had been paying. All I did was look around for other possible providers, get a few bids, and negotiate hard.

There's no reason to use an Arri on this shoot. IMHO it is an abuse of the taxpayers by the State.
 
I'm sorry, but that has got to be the most boring behind the scenes I've ever seen. It's not talking about the 'techniques' they used, any special lighting set-up, it's not even those corporate behind the scenes that just talk about the video like a broken record. It's just watching take, after take, after take, after take, as if seeing the Arri for five minutes is supposed to impress someone. Just felt like a boring day of work...

But yes, as a tourism video it felt pointless. That could be Montreal in a hot summer day for all I care...
 
I wouldn't make too many assumptions about what it is costing, what equipment they are using, or who paid for what.

I am not in a major market, so I own all of my own equipment. I am not working right now, but in 2004 my standard still photography equipment kit was at least $50,000 - a Canon 1DsII at $8,000, 11 Canon lenses, Broncolor studio lighting kit with 2 Para 220's, etc.

The nearest rental was at least 1.5 hours each way, and they didn't carry the equipment I needed. I don't think there was any where in the state that I could rent the Para's.

That is the same kit that I used for headshots for an actress, or a full blown location fashion shoot. There was a little fashion boutique across the street from my studio with an owner who was an excelent stylist. I spent days shooting images for her boutique that wouldn't even have paid for the rental of my equipment (Camera $350 a day, etc.). I did it in exchange for her services on other shoots, and for some high end clothes for my models, which I used to pay them for their work on my personal projects ....

You never know. When you own equipment and have slack time, the incremental cost and opportunity cost is small, as long as you don't undercut your regular business.


Michael
 
LOL just found the finished clip... https://vimeo.com/46118505

i liked the 360 of the alexa most^^, everything except from the pool is okay in my opinion

edit:

You're so right about putting $25K in the hands of aspiring filmmakers. The state could have spent a lot less and probably gotten a lot more.
Click to expand...
true, that big companies are just seeing the money they will get, they don't want to achieve the perfect piece anymore...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top