Gary_McClurg
Well-known member
Bill, just one of my crazy ideas. But has your company ever considered making a mini 35 (I know that's a copyrighted name) for a lot less than the other companies?
Question for Bill Turner.
- Thread starter Gary_McClurg
- Start date
Bill__Turner
Well-known member
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
Dear Doug,
That's not a crazy question, we ask ourselves (at Century/Schneider) that sort of thing all the time. One of the reason's I have started spending some time on this board, interactively not just reading, is to find out more about what the users want and need that might help us in deciding what products we can improve or might want to bring to the market in the future.
Typically when we look at an existing specialized product with limited demand, we ask ourselves, what can we do better? better quality? better function/features? lower price? and will the market support additional players? or will everyone end up with too small a piece of the pie for it to be profitable?
Honestly, P+S Filmtechnik is a quality company and the Mini35 is well thought out and well made. At first blush it would appear that the only reason to build a "me too" would be to take business away from them (divide the market) or ask ourselves would a much less expensive unit grow the market significantly?
I am not convinced that we could produce a unit of similar quality dramatically less expensively -- in terms of what the cost to the user would be. I have also been skeptical of the market, as I originally saw it as a rental item, given 35mm Cine lenses all are very expensive they would have to be rented too so what is the point of a cheaper unit?
Now I know that there seems to be a desire to use lower cost Nikon or Canon SLR lenses, but they are not suited to film style work, lacking proper focus mechanisms (by film standards) etc. Buying 6 or 8 of these lenses to mimic a set of cine primes is not cheap either given that ideally one wants fast lenses (f2 or at least f2.8) to be able to get the shallow depth of field which seems to be the only purpose of the system-unless I am missing something else.
So you have a very long answer, but you have given us food for thought.
Thankyou for sharing your thoughts.
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
Dear Doug,
That's not a crazy question, we ask ourselves (at Century/Schneider) that sort of thing all the time. One of the reason's I have started spending some time on this board, interactively not just reading, is to find out more about what the users want and need that might help us in deciding what products we can improve or might want to bring to the market in the future.
Typically when we look at an existing specialized product with limited demand, we ask ourselves, what can we do better? better quality? better function/features? lower price? and will the market support additional players? or will everyone end up with too small a piece of the pie for it to be profitable?
Honestly, P+S Filmtechnik is a quality company and the Mini35 is well thought out and well made. At first blush it would appear that the only reason to build a "me too" would be to take business away from them (divide the market) or ask ourselves would a much less expensive unit grow the market significantly?
I am not convinced that we could produce a unit of similar quality dramatically less expensively -- in terms of what the cost to the user would be. I have also been skeptical of the market, as I originally saw it as a rental item, given 35mm Cine lenses all are very expensive they would have to be rented too so what is the point of a cheaper unit?
Now I know that there seems to be a desire to use lower cost Nikon or Canon SLR lenses, but they are not suited to film style work, lacking proper focus mechanisms (by film standards) etc. Buying 6 or 8 of these lenses to mimic a set of cine primes is not cheap either given that ideally one wants fast lenses (f2 or at least f2.8) to be able to get the shallow depth of field which seems to be the only purpose of the system-unless I am missing something else.
So you have a very long answer, but you have given us food for thought.
Thankyou for sharing your thoughts.
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
Bill__Turner
Well-known member
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
hmm, the f2
was supposed to be f2.8 -- how that happened I have no idea !
Bill Turner
hmm, the f2
was supposed to be f2.8 -- how that happened I have no idea !Bill Turner
MattC
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
Great answer Bill, it's wonderful having someone of your expertise here.
Here's what I'd like for Christmas. A quality mattebox that I wouldn't have to sell a body part for. I understand that "quality" costs money, but please. $1,200 for a mattebox!!??!! I've bought small engines for less money. I would love for someone to try and explain why a mattebox costs more to produce than a four-stroke outboard. It's just rediculous, the cost is that high becuase they know they have people over a barrel and the market will bear it. I can guarantee that if you could produce a mattebox, rods and follow focus and price each reasonably, you would not only make a huge dent in the existing market, but you would open up the market to many who simply wont by one do to price.
Just my $0.02
Matt
Great answer Bill, it's wonderful having someone of your expertise here.
Here's what I'd like for Christmas. A quality mattebox that I wouldn't have to sell a body part for. I understand that "quality" costs money, but please. $1,200 for a mattebox!!??!! I've bought small engines for less money. I would love for someone to try and explain why a mattebox costs more to produce than a four-stroke outboard. It's just rediculous, the cost is that high becuase they know they have people over a barrel and the market will bear it. I can guarantee that if you could produce a mattebox, rods and follow focus and price each reasonably, you would not only make a huge dent in the existing market, but you would open up the market to many who simply wont by one do to price.
Just my $0.02
Matt
Barry_Green
Moderator
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
The smiley system here turns "8 )" into the 8) symbol.
The smiley system here turns "8 )" into the 8) symbol.
Bill__Turner
Well-known member
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
Matt C:
I agree, and this is something we are looking at seriously. One of the things that "hanging out" here has done is convince me that the cost of Matteboxes is a big issue for many users. The trick is to engineer one that can be made in a cost effective way, have the required features, and be of sufficient quality to satisfy the users--- easier said than done, but we are supposed to be clever people so..............
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
Matt C:
I agree, and this is something we are looking at seriously. One of the things that "hanging out" here has done is convince me that the cost of Matteboxes is a big issue for many users. The trick is to engineer one that can be made in a cost effective way, have the required features, and be of sufficient quality to satisfy the users--- easier said than done, but we are supposed to be clever people so..............
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
I think with matteboxes and follow focus units, there is a real resentment towards the pricing because the buyer sees them as being so simple in design and construction.
I think this is one of those things where unlike a piece of electronic hardware, in a matte box or followfocus, the end user clearly understands how the product functions. They understand how it is assembled, the know the number of parts incorporated in the design. They know the materials that are used in each piece and they make a mental assessment of how difficult it is to manufacture and design the product. If the assessed figure is dramatically less then the retail price, you wind up with some resentful customers.
What are support rods other then a few cast pieces and two metal rods? What is a follow focus unit other then a few cast pieces, a number of plastic parts, some gearing and a big knob? What is a mattebox other then an assorted pile of formed plastic? How is it any more difficult to produce then the average GI Joe tank?
While in truth the actual cost of manufacturing these parts is considerably higher then we might think on such a small scale, it seems that there still should be far more wiggle room in the retail price of a lot of these products. Because the final figure is so much higher then one would expect, the consumer can't help but feel ripped off, even if it might be unjust when considering the actual costs of manufacturing, distribution and marketing.
A follow focus unit for a DV camera should not cost more then a high-quality tripod and head. It should not cost more then an anamorphic adapter.
(not that I'm in the market for one, I just think I understand the frustration)
I think with matteboxes and follow focus units, there is a real resentment towards the pricing because the buyer sees them as being so simple in design and construction.
I think this is one of those things where unlike a piece of electronic hardware, in a matte box or followfocus, the end user clearly understands how the product functions. They understand how it is assembled, the know the number of parts incorporated in the design. They know the materials that are used in each piece and they make a mental assessment of how difficult it is to manufacture and design the product. If the assessed figure is dramatically less then the retail price, you wind up with some resentful customers.
What are support rods other then a few cast pieces and two metal rods? What is a follow focus unit other then a few cast pieces, a number of plastic parts, some gearing and a big knob? What is a mattebox other then an assorted pile of formed plastic? How is it any more difficult to produce then the average GI Joe tank?
While in truth the actual cost of manufacturing these parts is considerably higher then we might think on such a small scale, it seems that there still should be far more wiggle room in the retail price of a lot of these products. Because the final figure is so much higher then one would expect, the consumer can't help but feel ripped off, even if it might be unjust when considering the actual costs of manufacturing, distribution and marketing.
A follow focus unit for a DV camera should not cost more then a high-quality tripod and head. It should not cost more then an anamorphic adapter.
(not that I'm in the market for one, I just think I understand the frustration)
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
.. i second what j. barnes has said here. and also bounce back what matt c. has stated.
..i could type a book about the economics and the overpricing of these items .. but all i have to say is .. a follow focus - mattbox and rod system should not cost as much as our camera. they are accessories.. and simple designed ones at that. its not like re-inventing the wheel to design a quality and cheap to manufacture system. all i hear from manufacturers concerning these items is that the demand is not that great so it cost alot to make them in small runs. but, the demand IS great.. in fact its tremendous compared to whats actually being purchased.. the items are just grossly overpriced, and the mass market and demand is being missed. if they were priced realistically almost everyone in the market would buy one, and the manufacturing cost would be covered easily.
if someone seriously mispriced something like this on the show "the apprentice" and missed out on the real market opportunity from the items which lies in selling ALOT for little money vs selling a few for alot of money on an item with an opportunity to have a pretty cheap manufacturing cost.. they would be fired.
.. i second what j. barnes has said here. and also bounce back what matt c. has stated.
..i could type a book about the economics and the overpricing of these items .. but all i have to say is .. a follow focus - mattbox and rod system should not cost as much as our camera. they are accessories.. and simple designed ones at that. its not like re-inventing the wheel to design a quality and cheap to manufacture system. all i hear from manufacturers concerning these items is that the demand is not that great so it cost alot to make them in small runs. but, the demand IS great.. in fact its tremendous compared to whats actually being purchased.. the items are just grossly overpriced, and the mass market and demand is being missed. if they were priced realistically almost everyone in the market would buy one, and the manufacturing cost would be covered easily.
if someone seriously mispriced something like this on the show "the apprentice" and missed out on the real market opportunity from the items which lies in selling ALOT for little money vs selling a few for alot of money on an item with an opportunity to have a pretty cheap manufacturing cost.. they would be fired.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
well, i don't know that the demand is actually that large in terms of real numbers. Here on DVXUser, it's quite higher then average, but even if a follow focus/rods was priced in the 300-600 range, I'd be surprised if more then 1 out of every 8 DVX owners would purchase them. Considering how few actual DVX owners are out there in terms of a market share, and there might not be a whole ton of profit to be made.
BUT...I still think they can be made quite cheaper then they are right now. I think $500 would still be too much for a followfocus/rod assembly, but it would be hard to argue with that price if its' something you legitimately want/need. Add a mattebox for another $500 and I think you'd really be satisfying a lot of consumers out there for $1000.
But, we have to be a little bit honest about the size of the aftermarket acessories market. Seriously, there are tons and tons of people out there with $2k+ DV cameras who are still using the original manufacturer's microphones instead of an aftermarket upgrade.
I don't think the market is huge by any means, but I still think as stated above, it would certainly be larger if the buy-in point were lower...and there are tons of companies out there that successfully profit from tiny markets...that's not a legitimate excuse against business anymore.
well, i don't know that the demand is actually that large in terms of real numbers. Here on DVXUser, it's quite higher then average, but even if a follow focus/rods was priced in the 300-600 range, I'd be surprised if more then 1 out of every 8 DVX owners would purchase them. Considering how few actual DVX owners are out there in terms of a market share, and there might not be a whole ton of profit to be made.
BUT...I still think they can be made quite cheaper then they are right now. I think $500 would still be too much for a followfocus/rod assembly, but it would be hard to argue with that price if its' something you legitimately want/need. Add a mattebox for another $500 and I think you'd really be satisfying a lot of consumers out there for $1000.
But, we have to be a little bit honest about the size of the aftermarket acessories market. Seriously, there are tons and tons of people out there with $2k+ DV cameras who are still using the original manufacturer's microphones instead of an aftermarket upgrade.
I don't think the market is huge by any means, but I still think as stated above, it would certainly be larger if the buy-in point were lower...and there are tons of companies out there that successfully profit from tiny markets...that's not a legitimate excuse against business anymore.
taubkin
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1101515407;start=0#8 date=11/27/04 at 09:13:45]and there are tons of companies out there that successfully profit from tiny markets...that's not a legitimate excuse against business anymore.[/quote]
Apple computer, anyone?
The thing is: If Schneider/Century (a quality brand, with recognition) were to deliver a full package priced as j_barnes described and as the companys own (high) quality standard, it would be hard to take any other competing product. That could make for a pretty large market, the high marketshare. I don't know nothing about ecopnimics, but I'd certainly buy such a system, even if I had to save up some money. And I'd definately buy the mattebox, knowing the companion focus/rods system was much closer in range.
But I still think the existing products are overpriced, just as with any video gear. From studs to clamps to lens caps, everything is "priced for hollywood".
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1101515407;start=0#8 date=11/27/04 at 09:13:45]and there are tons of companies out there that successfully profit from tiny markets...that's not a legitimate excuse against business anymore.[/quote]
Apple computer, anyone?
The thing is: If Schneider/Century (a quality brand, with recognition) were to deliver a full package priced as j_barnes described and as the companys own (high) quality standard, it would be hard to take any other competing product. That could make for a pretty large market, the high marketshare. I don't know nothing about ecopnimics, but I'd certainly buy such a system, even if I had to save up some money. And I'd definately buy the mattebox, knowing the companion focus/rods system was much closer in range.
But I still think the existing products are overpriced, just as with any video gear. From studs to clamps to lens caps, everything is "priced for hollywood".
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
I've never used a mattebox, and I still kick myself for passing up what I now know was a great deal on one (as well as a follow focus) I hear a great deal of talk on this site about them. What is a mattebox, and what does it do? I realize that it attaches to the camera in front of the lens, providing a shade against lens flare. It also seems to be some sort of filter housing. WHat else? The reason that I ask is that I am a pretty handy and imaginative guy. Could I build one? Are there plans for one? Perhaps there is a simple way to make something that provides 80-90% of the benefit at 10% of the price. That's what I did for a softbox. I made a very effective 1000 watt diffused lighting set up for about 30 bucks. It's not quite as light, or easy to set up as a real soft box, but aside from some light spill it does the same damn thing. Anyway, I was just wondering.
I've never used a mattebox, and I still kick myself for passing up what I now know was a great deal on one (as well as a follow focus) I hear a great deal of talk on this site about them. What is a mattebox, and what does it do? I realize that it attaches to the camera in front of the lens, providing a shade against lens flare. It also seems to be some sort of filter housing. WHat else? The reason that I ask is that I am a pretty handy and imaginative guy. Could I build one? Are there plans for one? Perhaps there is a simple way to make something that provides 80-90% of the benefit at 10% of the price. That's what I did for a softbox. I made a very effective 1000 watt diffused lighting set up for about 30 bucks. It's not quite as light, or easy to set up as a real soft box, but aside from some light spill it does the same damn thing. Anyway, I was just wondering.
taubkin
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
I hope you used the right materials for your softbox, in any case, be sure to be safe for fire.
You can build it: It's just a sunshade with 2 "drawers" for sliding filters in. The good ones also let you rotate the filters, so you can use polarizer or twisted grads... But if you build something nice that does not allow you to rotate them, you'll already be in the nice side. In fact, there are some matteboxes (filter holders) for still photography, that are much cheaper then video matteboxes and can work great, for a low budget solution... Rent one and check it out how it's built.
I hope you used the right materials for your softbox, in any case, be sure to be safe for fire.
You can build it: It's just a sunshade with 2 "drawers" for sliding filters in. The good ones also let you rotate the filters, so you can use polarizer or twisted grads... But if you build something nice that does not allow you to rotate them, you'll already be in the nice side. In fact, there are some matteboxes (filter holders) for still photography, that are much cheaper then video matteboxes and can work great, for a low budget solution... Rent one and check it out how it's built.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
Jeez, I was wondering why my house caught fire ;D
Yes, I am very careful about things like that Taubkin, but I appreciate your concern, as it is a very good point.
Thanks for the tips about the mattebox. I'll look into it.
Jeez, I was wondering why my house caught fire ;D
Yes, I am very careful about things like that Taubkin, but I appreciate your concern, as it is a very good point.
Thanks for the tips about the mattebox. I'll look into it.
MattC
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1101515407;start=0#8 date=11/27/04 at 09:13:45]there are tons of companies out there that successfully profit from tiny markets...that's not a legitimate excuse against business anymore.[/quote]
I agree, and I think a company like Schneider has a distinct advantage because these items would not represent their whole line. If all you make are matteboxes and you only sell x amount of them, your total profit is based on how much you can charge for matteboxes. However if they are just another product in a diverse line, the margin doesn't need to be as high, you still need to remain profitable, but you don't have to be obscenely profitable to live. PLUS, from Schneider's point of view it makes more financial sense. I bought one of their polarizing filters (love it, BTW) but it was a screw on, which costs much less than a 4X4. However, if I had purchased a mattebox from them, well, guess which filter I'd buy. And when I had a choice similiarly priced filters from a variety of manufacturers, guess which filters I would buy...
Might be a good move.
Matt
[quote author=J_Barnes link=board=news;num=1101515407;start=0#8 date=11/27/04 at 09:13:45]there are tons of companies out there that successfully profit from tiny markets...that's not a legitimate excuse against business anymore.[/quote]
I agree, and I think a company like Schneider has a distinct advantage because these items would not represent their whole line. If all you make are matteboxes and you only sell x amount of them, your total profit is based on how much you can charge for matteboxes. However if they are just another product in a diverse line, the margin doesn't need to be as high, you still need to remain profitable, but you don't have to be obscenely profitable to live. PLUS, from Schneider's point of view it makes more financial sense. I bought one of their polarizing filters (love it, BTW) but it was a screw on, which costs much less than a 4X4. However, if I had purchased a mattebox from them, well, guess which filter I'd buy. And when I had a choice similiarly priced filters from a variety of manufacturers, guess which filters I would buy...
Might be a good move.
Matt
Slimothy
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
The market may not be that huge right now, but with a substantial price cut the the market would definately pick up. Maybe in a few years at a lower price the mattebox will be a standard thing for people to invest in. Think of how much money they are losing by having their prices so high. You're only going to get the Hardcore filmers out there to buy them. The rest are buying the ones that are cheap: FM500 etc. I remember the days when I would go buy a punk cd: (Strung Out, Pennywise, Offspring, AFI, etc.) and they were $21.00!!!! After Napster/Kazaa: same cds for $6-10.00! Maybe someone on this board needs to play the part of Napster. Design a super cool-looking effective mattebox and sell them for a quarter of the price. WE SHALL RISE AGAINST THE CORPORATE SCUM....j/k.
The market may not be that huge right now, but with a substantial price cut the the market would definately pick up. Maybe in a few years at a lower price the mattebox will be a standard thing for people to invest in. Think of how much money they are losing by having their prices so high. You're only going to get the Hardcore filmers out there to buy them. The rest are buying the ones that are cheap: FM500 etc. I remember the days when I would go buy a punk cd: (Strung Out, Pennywise, Offspring, AFI, etc.) and they were $21.00!!!! After Napster/Kazaa: same cds for $6-10.00! Maybe someone on this board needs to play the part of Napster. Design a super cool-looking effective mattebox and sell them for a quarter of the price. WE SHALL RISE AGAINST THE CORPORATE SCUM....j/k.
J_Barnes
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
How big do you think the yearly market is in real numbers? 5,000? 15,000? 50,000? 500,000?
I think you'd be surprised at how few people in the world are interested in buying something like this.
There's probably more people in the market for Poison Idea CD's then there are for matte boxes.
How big do you think the yearly market is in real numbers? 5,000? 15,000? 50,000? 500,000?
I think you'd be surprised at how few people in the world are interested in buying something like this.
There's probably more people in the market for Poison Idea CD's then there are for matte boxes.
Jim Brennan
VHS Member Old Skool
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
I know I'd be more likely to buy one. But I think that part of the issue is the prohibitive price. The other part is that many of us (Me until recently) did not understand how much a matte box could do for you.
I know I'd be more likely to buy one. But I think that part of the issue is the prohibitive price. The other part is that many of us (Me until recently) did not understand how much a matte box could do for you.
Bill__Turner
Well-known member
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
I have been following along with interest. Clearly I do not know the combined sales figures for all the current mattebox's sold to the DV market by all the various manufacturers.
Without getting lost in what is a mattebox vs a sunshade/filter holder, my GUESS is that 1000-2000 pcs of all makes are being sold world wide. This is a significant number , but divided up 4 or 5 ways and consisting of different models it does not lend itself to low cost mass production techniques.
Consider that Panasonic has reportedly delivered 50,000+ DVX100/100a since introduction.
The other part that I won't dwell on is that the cost to advertize distribute to agents and dealers to resell at a profit all figures into the price of a product so the idea that it consists of $20 worth of metal and plastic plus labor is misleading.
I do agree that a good lower cost solution would help grow the market for matteboxes--- and other specialized accessories that are now perceived as too expensive.
There is no conspiracy amongst the manufacturers, if someone could make and sell them for significantly less they would be.
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
I have been following along with interest. Clearly I do not know the combined sales figures for all the current mattebox's sold to the DV market by all the various manufacturers.
Without getting lost in what is a mattebox vs a sunshade/filter holder, my GUESS is that 1000-2000 pcs of all makes are being sold world wide. This is a significant number , but divided up 4 or 5 ways and consisting of different models it does not lend itself to low cost mass production techniques.
Consider that Panasonic has reportedly delivered 50,000+ DVX100/100a since introduction.
The other part that I won't dwell on is that the cost to advertize distribute to agents and dealers to resell at a profit all figures into the price of a product so the idea that it consists of $20 worth of metal and plastic plus labor is misleading.
I do agree that a good lower cost solution would help grow the market for matteboxes--- and other specialized accessories that are now perceived as too expensive.
There is no conspiracy amongst the manufacturers, if someone could make and sell them for significantly less they would be.
Bill Turner
Century Division
Schneider Optics
Slimothy
Veteran
Re: Question for Bill Turner.
Actually there are people selling them for significantly less isn't there? Like the Formatt 500 is only like 300 bucks whilst some of the Chroziels are above 1000. Maybe the Chroziels are made of WAY better materials etc. But I still can't see it being ACTUALLY WORTH the price when there are cheaper ones that do the same thing. But I also don't know a whole lot about matteboxes in general so me saying the cheaper ones do the same thing is just based on some things I've read.
Also: How EXACTLY do you pronounce mattebox? Is it (Matt-tay-box)? Shows how much I know....
Actually there are people selling them for significantly less isn't there? Like the Formatt 500 is only like 300 bucks whilst some of the Chroziels are above 1000. Maybe the Chroziels are made of WAY better materials etc. But I still can't see it being ACTUALLY WORTH the price when there are cheaper ones that do the same thing. But I also don't know a whole lot about matteboxes in general so me saying the cheaper ones do the same thing is just based on some things I've read.
Also: How EXACTLY do you pronounce mattebox? Is it (Matt-tay-box)? Shows how much I know....