The Difference between Blackmagic and Canon/Nikon/Panasonic

B

Benjobe

Well-known member
Blackmagic's CEO, Grant Petty, seems to be passionate about innovative technology and customer service, and less so in making a profit. Quite the opposite of the major camera manufacturers. Here's the link to the story:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11646/...c-cameras-concept-offered-major-manufacturers

A few questions:

Is this really news to anyone? Of course the entrenched conglomerates avoid risk and worship profit above all else.

Where is the source material for this story? Is this direct communication between Petty and Reid?

And is Blackmagic a publicly traded company? Because if so then I want to buy some of their stock.
 
It's pretty bad that you can't figure out where the source of this story comes from. It's embedded in Andrew Reid's text, but he should just provide the source UP-FRONT so it doesn't seem like he did the interview himself. It's just standard journalistic practice to clearly state the source of the quotes, but who am I kidding here? This is the internet. Where Facebook "shares" are the major venue of news for most people, Yahoo has changed from a search and news portal to a Kardashian publicity portal, and mis-information and farce taken as fact. The link to the artice (again, not provided by EOSHD):

http://www.tvbeurope.com/main-content/full/blackmagic-ceo-low-frame-rate-uhd-is-not-good-enough#.UqDWTdJDvAk
 
Last edited:
Benjobe said:
Blackmagic's CEO, Grant Petty, seems to be passionate about innovative technology and customer service, and less so in making a profit. Quite the opposite of the major camera manufacturers. Here's the link to the story:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11646/...c-cameras-concept-offered-major-manufacturers

A few questions:

Is this really news to anyone? Of course the entrenched conglomerates avoid risk and worship profit above all else.

Where is the source material for this story? Is this direct communication between Petty and Reid?

And is Blackmagic a publicly traded company? Because if so then I want to buy some of their stock.
Click to expand...

Being passionate about technology and making money are the same things, not things that are mutually exclusive. No one thinks they will get rich making a bad product. That is obviously dumb.

"Greed" is always something the other guy wants. If you want it, it's not greed. If the other guys wants it, it's greed. There are people starving in Africa that think your expensive camera is just greed. Could you use a less expensive camera and get by and help some people with that money? Of course you could. But your camera is important to you, so that's not greed right? But those other people? They don't need that stuff. THEY are greedy! The stuff I have? I NEED that stuff! I'm not greedy!

“We are not psychotic about making money at all costs or hardcore sales. We are unashamedly geeky. We want to be friendly and be of service.”

Guess what? Any company that is psychotic about making money at all costs will go out of business. No one stays in business if they don't give good customer service. This is not rocket science. Sony, Canon, all camera companies, all companies period, know this. It's dumb to think otherwise.

Black magic is doing what Canon or Sony would in the same position as a start up with not much brand name recognition and a very small product line. Black Magic at the end of the day is a camera company trying to make profits. Just like Sony and Canon.

Think about it. If you sell a lot of products you'll get rich right? So is this guy saying he hopes he makes products no one will buy? Is he?
 
Last edited:
Minor corrections:

Blackmagic isn't a start-up, nor a camera-specific company.

They've been around since the 80's, just now getting into cameras.

I think you meant "also a camera company", but just didn't see it in the writing.
 
My point is simple.

Are these guys at Black Magic trying to get rich? Well, you get rich if you make something people want. I suppose you could argue they are trying to make a camera no one wants. I don't know why they would do that though.
 
If you're a new player, the only path to success is building a product that people will want to buy for what it is. Others can count on brand recognition, and it shows.
 
Gillvane said:
Guess what? Any company that is psychotic about making money at all costs will go out of business. No one stays in business if they don't give good customer service. This is not rocket science. Sony, Canon, all camera companies, all companies period, know this. It's dumb to think otherwise.

Black magic is doing what Canon or Sony would in the same position as a start up with not much brand name recognition and a very small product line. Black Magic at the end of the day is a camera company trying to make profits. Just like Sony and Canon.

Think about it. If you sell a lot of products you'll get rich right? So is this guy saying he hopes he makes products no one will buy? Is he?
Click to expand...

I couldn't disagree with this more.
The world is filled with greedy self-obssesed individuals and corporations.
It's also filled with visionary, dedicated individuals and organizations that understand the healthy balance of success/profit/social contract.
The latter also tend to be great places to work and they promote and reward creative thinking...not just profit making.
Those companies also tend to give back a great deal from their profits to community as well.
My company is lucky to work with some of them and the difference in our relationship vs our board driven, bottom-line obsessed clients is striking.

A company like Canon and the way they handle just this piece of their business (the one we discuss) and Black Magic, couldn't be more different.
Just my opinion as an entrepreneur and a Canon and Black Magic shooter (and Sony now because they took a ballsy approach with the new little RX10 so I had to reward them <g>.)
 
It kind of irks me that so many people are impatient with the speed of video technology implementation. Maybe because they have not been in the field long enough to have a historical perspective. Cameras and NLE systems are light years ahead of were they were 10-20 years ago and at a fraction of the cost. This is because of marketing to the masses by Canon, Panasonic and Sony. I don't see where greed even enters into this. Corporations have an obligation to their stock holders to make money. Back in the 80's and 90's cameras costing $20,000 - $30,000 don't come close to matching the specs of camera now costing under $5,000. I would suspect that half the people on this forum wouldn't even being doing video today if those prices had not significantly come down. In almost all technology fields you will have innovative companies like Black Magic come in an fill a void if they can make money. With a cleverly run public relations campaign any small to medium size company can look like a "maverick" which has a lot of appeal to some consumers.
 
Those evil corporations, how dare they produce stuff for the masses while fulfilling their obligation to their stockholders (like my IRA) by protecting their bottom line. Why can't they be more like smaller companies producing niche products that relatively few people are going to buy. :)

Sorry, couldn't resist. But this notion that Sony, Canon, or Panasonic is evil or greedy because they don't produce the item you want is a little silly. They have obligations to their shareholders. Plus what if they tried to produce "revolutionary" products and failed. They're already struggling... betting the farm and risking thousands of jobs just to not be "greedy" is short sighted.

Besides, I'm pretty sure the DVX100 and AF100 could be considered pretty revolutionary. Sony and Canon have similar products. But vastly more people want HPX250 type cameras than BMC type cameras. Which makes more sense? Investing your limited capital in developing and/or improving your established product lines that are vastly more profitable, or developing niche products that relatively few will buy?
 
Yeah, Canon / Nikon / Panasonic / Sony are almost like institutions in Japan. The failure of any of these companies would be pretty awful for that country, and to a lesser extent their subsidiaries throughout the world. They have to make a healthy profit.

When I visit RED headquarters down in Irvine, I get the sense that even Jannard's company is very well on its way to maturity. They have outstanding personal customer service, a bright attractive receptionist, their building and parking lot sits in a well known industrial park. I'm sure most of RED's employees get perks and health benefits. Sorry, but that all costs a whole bunch of dough that has to be made up somewhere. Failure only means a lot of people lose their jobs.
 
Doctor Wu said:
It's pretty bad that you can't figure out where the source of this story comes from. It's embedded in Andrew Reid's text, but he should just provide the source UP-FRONT so it doesn't seem like he did the interview himself. It's just standard journalistic practice to clearly state the source of the quotes, but who am I kidding here? This is the internet. Where Facebook "shares" are the major venue of news for most people, Yahoo has changed from a search and news portal to a Kardashian publicity portal, and mis-information and farce taken as fact. The link to the artice (again, not provided by EOSHD):

http://www.tvbeurope.com/main-content/full/blackmagic-ceo-low-frame-rate-uhd-is-not-good-enough#.UqDWTdJDvAk
Click to expand...

Sorry, I missed that post!
 
jimagine said:
I couldn't disagree with this more.
The world is filled with greedy self-obssesed individuals and corporations.
It's also filled with visionary, dedicated individuals and organizations that understand the healthy balance of success/profit/social contract.
The latter also tend to be great places to work and they promote and reward creative thinking...not just profit making.
Those companies also tend to give back a great deal from their profits to community as well.
My company is lucky to work with some of them and the difference in our relationship vs our board driven, bottom-line obsessed clients is striking.

A company like Canon and the way they handle just this piece of their business (the one we discuss) and Black Magic, couldn't be more different.
Just my opinion as an entrepreneur and a Canon and Black Magic shooter (and Sony now because they took a ballsy approach with the new little RX10 so I had to reward them <g>.)
Click to expand...

One just started making cameras and hopes to gain a foothold in the industry, the other started making cameras in the 1930's and is a well established company that makes MILLLIONS of people happy with their products. That's teh difference. Anything else is just emotional baloney that you made up and want to be true for some ideology you have bought into.
 
Last edited:
Gillvane said:
Being passionate about technology and making money are the same things
Click to expand...

I find this odd.

A Tale of Two Cobblers

George wants to make shoes for a living. But in general making shoes gives him no pleasure. It's just a job, so he can make money, so he can buy a TV and take vacations in Europe. So, he makes them from the cheapest materials and sets up a factory to churn them out as quickly and cheaply as possible. Say it costs him $2 per pair of shoes, and he sells them for $12. Profit: $10 per shoe. Last year he sold 10,000 pairs of shoes. Total net income: $100,000.

Henrik also wants to make shoes for a living, but he enjoys doing it. He loves working with leather, working with his hands with simple tools handed down from his forefathers. He would do it for a hobby if it weren't his real job. But by making them one at a time by hand with high-quality materials, his costs are higher than George's: $10 per pair. He sells them for $25. Profit: $15 per shoe. But because they're higher priced, he sells fewer than George's Fast Tracks. Last year he sold 2,000 pairs. Total net income: $30,000.

George made over three times as much money as Henrik. Yet they both might be equally happy. In fact, Henrik might be happier. For 50 out of the 52 weeks of the year, George is doing something he hates and Henrik is doing something he loves.
 
combatentropy said:
I find this odd.

A Tale of Two Cobblers

George wants to make shoes for a living. But in general making shoes gives him no pleasure. It's just a job, so he can make money, so he can buy a TV and take vacations in Europe. So, he makes them from the cheapest materials and sets up a factory to churn them out as quickly and cheaply as possible. Say it costs him $2 per pair of shoes, and he sells them for $12. Profit: $10 per shoe. Last year he sold 10,000 pairs of shoes. Total net income: $100,000.

Henrik also wants to make shoes for a living, but he enjoys doing it. He loves working with leather, working with his hands with simple tools handed down from his forefathers. He would do it for a hobby if it weren't his real job. But by making them one at a time by hand with high-quality materials, his costs are higher than George's: $10 per pair. He sells them for $25. Profit: $15 per shoe. But because they're higher priced, he sells fewer than George's Fast Tracks. Last year he sold 2,000 pairs. Total net income: $30,000.

George made over three times as much money as Henrik. Yet they both might be equally happy. In fact, Henrik might be happier. For 50 out of the 52 weeks of the year, George is doing something he hates and Henrik is doing something he loves.
Click to expand...



you can love making cheap shoes, you can love making expensive shoes. you can hate making cheap shoes, you can hate making expensive shoes. What's your point?
 
Gillvane said:
One just started making cameras and hopes to gain a foothold in the industry, the other started making cameras in the 1930's and is a well established company that makes MILLLIONS of people happy with their products. That's teh difference. Anything else is just emotional baloney that you made up and want to be true for some ideology you have bought into.
Click to expand...

Try to disagree without insulting.
You don't know me and you have no place calling informed, opinion, "emotional baloney".
This is an adult conversation, try acting with some respect.
 
Here an interview with a sony manager. He's certainly not lacking emotions but the interview shows very well the different mindset of an established company.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/new...w-what-does-it-take-to-change-the-camera-game

I think in their way they also try to push boundaries. It's just more focused on market areas within the company's general market and it shows how you have to respond with your decisions in front of the higher management. Probably many ideas get lost in that process, but Kimio Maki managed to push through his concept of the RX10.
 
jimagine said:
Try to disagree without insulting.
You don't know me and you have no place calling informed, opinion, "emotional baloney".
This is an adult conversation, try acting with some respect.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to insult anyone. I just call 'em like I see 'em.

The whole "this company is for the people!" vs "this company is a greedy corporation!" thing seems childish to me and not based on any real economic models, numbers, or anything except emotion. I think you'd have a point if Black Magic filed for 501-(3)c status, but until then not so much.

These are both companies that make cameras for a profit.
 
Gillvane said:
The whole "this company is for the people!" vs "this company is a greedy corporation!" thing seems childish to me and not based on any real economic models, numbers, or anything except emotion.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't call it "childish" - I would call it "marketing"! :)

If you are trying to break into an industry, you want to differentiate your product in the marketplace, and build up loyalty within a fan base. To do the latter, you need to make your target customers feel "special", or "separate from the herd" if you like. Comments such as reported are the way Black Magic are trying to play a trick that in essence is as old as the hills.

Big companies like Canon, Panasonic and Sony are catering (very well) for the mass market, there's a limit to how many niches they can try to suit. Black Magic have identified a niche that the majors aren't filling, and hats off to them for that. But to say they have done it because it's their passion and not to make money..... that is just stretching credulity too far.

If you look at the TVBEurope article, there's at least one paragraph which did cause me amusement:
"Broadcasters have to figure out how to get UHD 60p down a conventional channel. UHD at low framerates is doable, but even so it will emerge pretty rough on transmission. The problem is that 4K is being driven by organisations pretending that low framerate UHD is good enough. That's a press release, not a workflow.”
Click to expand...
He is absolutely correct of course. UHD at low framerates is doable, but even so it will emerge pretty rough on transmission. 4K is being driven by organisations pretending that low framerate UHD is good enough. That's a press release, not a workflow.

But hold on. Who are the organisations pretending "low framerate UHD is good enough"? Why doesn't he name and shame them? Not Canon - the C500 does 4K at 60p. Not Sony - the FS700 and F5/55 do 4K at 60p. Not Panasonic - I can't believe the new Varicam will be limited to 30p. Not Red, surely?

No - I think it's that new camera - what's the name? - which maxes out at 30p in 4K and is likewise limited to quad-HD, not true 4K ........ :)
 
harddrive said:
I wouldn't call it "childish" - I would call it "marketing"! :)

If you are trying to break into an industry, you want to differentiate your product in the marketplace, and build up loyalty within a fan base. To do the latter, you need to make your target customers feel "special", or "separate from the herd" if you like. Comments such as reported are the way Black Magic are trying to play a trick that in essence is as old as the hills.

Big companies like Canon, Panasonic and Sony are catering (very well) for the mass market, there's a limit to how many niches they can try to suit. Black Magic have identified a niche that the majors aren't filling, and hats off to them for that. But to say they have done it because it's their passion and not to make money..... that is just stretching credulity too far.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree with anything there. No one is making a product hoping people won't buy it. Nothing wrong with marketing and providing a product that fills a niche.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top