so why wait for RED?

ernesto said:
So RED reservation holders, why buy instead of rent? Unless you are buying to start a renting business.:)
Click to expand...
Why do people buy digital SLRs instead of rent.. Infact come to think of it, why do people buy anything instead of rent?

For those wanting to shoot documentaries, or take the camera with them on trips whenever they please, or not base a shooting schedule around a rental schedule it makes perfect sense. But no doubt people will still be renting accessories and lenses. So there is still an important aspect of rental that will go hand in hand with the red camera. The sheer amount of upgradable accessories that will be available for this camera lends itself to a rental model.

Shooting your daughters first birthday in 4k. I heard that spielberg shot his wifes baby delivery on 35mm. Well now you TOO can do that on RED! No doubt there is a 'toy' element to this camera which will attract filmmakers and non-filmmakers alike.

Besides, I think 8 weeks of rental for the body alone = price of the camera brand new.
 
Last edited:
acehole111 said:
Why do people buy digital SLRs instead of rent.. Infact come to think of it, why do people buy anything instead of rent?
Click to expand...

You've hit the nail on the head. Back in the day (well, '98 to '01), when royalty free stock footage on CD-ROM was a new concept, I was in on the ground floor with new time-lapse cloud and traffic footage shot on 35mm with a camera nearly 100 years old (see my sig line). People would ask me what my secret was, then I'd say "It's easy... just be in the right place at the right time with a fully loaded 35mm motion picture camera handy." That's extremely hard to do if you're renting.

As to why the RED is so appealing to me, it has to do with being able to shoot top-notch blue and green screen plates, and inserts for VFX. I want to trick it out for motion control work as well. I like the idea of a camera that can retain its value for a period of years. Also, I do large format 4k by 4k dome show work, where the RED will fit right in for live action inserts. None of these things are related to independent cinema or "dreamer" goals, but the RED is uniquely suited for them.

Regards,
 
why buy a 40k car when you can buy a 15k car ..

why pay 2500 rent when you can pay 1000 ?

why spend 1 mil on a movie when you can make one for 50k or
why spend 50k when you can do it for 8k ?
everybody's choices are different ...

i'm buying a RED for personal use ( and friends personal projects)
for any job releated projects - production company rents whatever is needed - including in the future RED (it will not be my personal RED camera- i bring light meters only)

i have no plans to do a feature .. strickly short experimental films where there is no $$ return ...
i've tried out hand size camera's, find them in general very good value/image for the $$$ but the image just isn't doing it for me these days ..
last 3 personal shorts shot on super 8 kodachrome , 16 B&W , 16 color ..
had nothing but problems once film left my hands ( lab, telecine, 2k scans & return ) .. perhaps somebody else would have chosen DVX 100 camera instead of super 8 but these are my projects = i make the calls on what medium is used ...i pay the bills ...
the only 2/3" camera that i find the images very interesting are from the SI camera ...

why one would one spend XX$ when they can get similar by spending less pretty much fits any item ...
bottom line for all is to work within your budget ...
 
I find this funny. The whole thread was started not as a slam against Red. But as a question why would you buy a camera over shooting a movie.

It has nothing to do with the workflow, will it work. He just wanted to know why some one would choose to spend their money on a camera that isn't even out yet and why wouldn't they consider the odds of making their own film.
 
when you say making movies, I can't help but think that a shallow depth of field helps tell a story.
Click to expand...

And to think, people were wowed by the use of deep focus in Citizen Kane. Welles commented that the film required an alert viewer checking out the entire frame instead of having the film maker spoon feed it to them.

Sorry, could not resist =)
 
yagfxg33k said:
And to think, people were wowed by the use of deep focus in Citizen Kane. Welles commented that the film required an alert viewer checking out the entire frame instead of having the film maker spoon feed it to them.
Click to expand...

In B/W deep focus can work really well, but in colour it tends to be distracting 'cause your eye is drawn by colour rather than the focus. You'd have to be very careful about what was in frame and the effect on the audience; you may find they end up watching the bright red jacket walking by in the background when they're supposed to be paying attention to the story :)
 
tonacidigital said:
thanks for clarifying. How much would a dalsa cost to bring home?
Click to expand...
Maybe only Ilya can answer you but I'm afraid they don't sell just rent. However, strictly from the RED buyer POV, it would be interesting estimate a price range for such 4K set-up. Even if RED has another marketing purpose, a different core business regarding allover aspects IMHO.
 
Last edited:
yagfxg33k said:
And to think, people were wowed by the use of deep focus in Citizen Kane. Welles commented that the film required an alert viewer checking out the entire frame instead of having the film maker spoon feed it to them.

Sorry, could not resist =)
Click to expand...


In that quote Orson Welles is saying shallow depth of field is THAT powerful.


AUTOMATIC orseon welles machine is, i mean red should make the camera only shoot in deep focus
-
also they sell now a "jimi Hendrix" wah/fuzz guitar pedal.
 
yagfxg33k said:
And to think, people were wowed by the use of deep focus in Citizen Kane. Welles commented that the film required an alert viewer checking out the entire frame instead of having the film maker spoon feed it to them.

Sorry, could not resist =)
Click to expand...

Bokeh = beautiful
 
Spending the money on a camera vs. funding a production.

A little bit chicken or the egg, which should be first.

1. You fund an indie film with let's say the $20-30,000ish that the camera will cost. What have you got. With the exeption of a very few especially talented individuals, you will just have a nice little movie to watch with your grandkids and be $20-$30,000 lighter in the wallet to show for it.
The odds are stacked dramatically against you ever seeing a profit on a film produced with a budget in the price range of the camera.

2. You buy a camera. You are virtually guaranteed to AT LEAST pay it off if only through rentals. You can use the camera for a variety of types of profit making ventures including industrials and broadcast television. The profits from which can be turned to fund the indie projects of your dreams.

The whole premise of proposing to "choose" between a camera or funding a production rests on the premise that you WILL make money on the indie film when in reality is the odds are stacked 99% against you ever seeing any profit.

Regarding the 4K issues discussed.

I think the arguments both for and against this camera regarding 4K are to some extent red herrings. Most people are not going to post in 4K. There is not a huge need for it except in effects driven work. There will not soon be 4K theatrical projection anywhere but a few special venues. The vast majority of moviegoers would not see enough of a difference to justify theaters installing the equipment. 2K is plenty good for your average multiplex. Many may shoot in 4K but will likely scale to 2K or even 1080 for post. It is not a fair argument against the camera to claim the high cost of 4K post will impede the success of the camera. Unfortunately, that discussion is fed by the fact that nearly all the hype and discussions center around producing in 4K when in reality, the camera offers so much more flexibility than that.

As to the objections that there will not be a way to get the material through established post production routes. I think the Red team is going out of it's way to provide immediate access to current post production tools via codecs or conversion tools. Although Red's software code is proprietary, the development is being conducted in an almost "open source" spirit that you don't normally see from the usual camera makers. Now, I don't know if they will specifically address getting the footage into an Inferno, but I think the more common post routes will be covered.

You know, what this camera really represents is freedom. The ability to own your own tools and use them on your own terms, not the terms dictated by rental situations. To rent from most rental houses, you need a pretty good budget, you have to meet the insurance/credit requirements, and you have to plan way ahead to make sure you can actually get the gear you want. Ownership means you can roll out of bed and go shoot some extra scenic B-Roll you found you needed while editing the day before. The costs of a Cinealta and similar cameras have nothing to do that kind of freedom.
 
hey..wait a minute..i can get GREAT DOF with my dvx100a..just gotta move the camera way back and zoom in on the subject....done and done.. lol :D

figured this thread needed some comedy.....conversation getting too hot!!! :D

And i'm on my 2nd documentray, dvx is awesome... but i'm certain red will be great in its own way
 
mmmmmm

mmmmmm

Sproketz said:
2. You buy a camera. You are virtually guaranteed to AT LEAST pay it off if only through rentals. You can use the camera for a variety of types of profit making ventures including industrials and broadcast television. The profits from which can be turned to fund the indie projects of your dreams.
Click to expand...

Really?

If you aren't already paying the bills as a DP, what makes you think anyone is going to hire you just b/c you own a camera head? Plus, who is going to rent from you unless you have a reasonably complete package (including a few cine lenses) to offer?

I'm not saying that no one here is going to make bucks from renting out their RED ONE, but buying a camera and hoping that you will find enough renters to cover the cost isn't much of a business model.
 
There are 100 reasons why the RED ONE makes sense for some to own and 1000 reasons why it doesn't for others. I guess we are building it for the 1st group.

Jim
 
I am like Jim obsessed with digital photography. I do not do it for a living but I shoot with a Canon 1ds (like him) with lenses like 200 1.8, 85 1.2, 135 2.0, etc.. It is not for most people I know - but I have the best pictures of thier families. Jim is trying to make these pictures move and that will be priceless. I get invited to events a lot - and they always say "bring your camera, okay". I plan to use the Red camera to shoot a feature late next year. I plan to use it to do some music videos, etc. for me and my partner's record label. Most importantly, I plan to use it for my kid's kindergarten graduation, Ice Hockey games, and birthdays. Jim has the capacity and vision to design this camera, I don't. But we will have another thing in common. We will both have mind blowing family videos!
I proudly belong to the 100 group!

Ronnie
 
tonacidigital said:
thanks for clarifying. How much would a dalsa cost to bring home?
Click to expand...
We get offers all the time, but unfortunately Origin 4K cameras are not for sale.

If you were to rent one and destroy it, you still wouldn't get to keep the components; and you'd be hit with a VERY big insurance bill.

However, if you've got about $30K lying around you can get on the list to pick up one of these in early 2007:

http://www.roundshot.ch/xml_1/internet/de/application/d438/d925/f934.cfm

How does 160 million pixels grab you?

I.
 
I think Barry Greens post here is the voice of reason. I cant wait to rent red and use it something, but the reality is there is so much more to the RED picture than many seem to argue. Production costs, post production costs, lenses - a full set of primes is going to rent for the same as the cam itself.... cost more to purchase.

Its very easy for people to become passionate about something. And passion is a good thing especially when you have your eyes open.

The original poster made points about true 4k output, then theres comments about DOWNconverting to other formats, if Im just going to DOWNconvert then red isnt for me, with the associated costs.

I do envy the people that can afford red right now with the kit to support it, dont get me wrong. But this is certainly not the Independent film makers format budget of say the XL h1 or HVX. Which are both TRUE HD! True HD in the 1/3" chip sense. That comment made me squemish.

Now with my opinion out of the way... I hope Mr Natress isnt too busy to continue with his FCP plug ins .. if your not using them GET THEM NOW! No seriously they are great and cheap. Better than MB, and Boris Continuum put together for my work and at a fraction of the cost. Well Mb is lame anyway :P

acehole111 said:
For those wanting to shoot documentaries, or take the camera with them on trips whenever they please, or not base a shooting schedule around a rental schedule it makes perfect sense.
Click to expand...

If you got the $$ fine, dunno how you would go with 4k on a holiday though. Might buy a Panavision for that... oh yeah they only rent. Out of luck again.

Sorry have to add someone mentioned the HVX film out wasnt to their expectation as far as quality goes... thats a fair point as far as asthtics go but the number of succesful film outs from SD is as long as your arm (longer actually - just like that saying).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top