Cameras and Relationships

[Robert Rogoz]

The ultimate camera would be a unit about a size of DVX100. It would have a interchangeable lens, and it would record to removable SSD unit in ProRes 422 HQ for about 6K. The whole unit would weigh about 5-6lbs or so. It should be able to record in 1080/60p and be powered by AB batteries.

[Shaun Roemich]

BTW, anyone who thinks RED is charging $$$$$$ for their cameras is deluding themselves. The costs of developing a BRAND NEW camera system from scratch knowing full well that it will never sell millions have got to be astronomical. Yes, a RED system costs more than an EX1 BUT you get a task built, open architecture unit that you can buy and build just about any way you want.

[Rick Bolton]

Shaun - what is the delusion - are they not expensive??

From their site - body ONLY

[Shaun Roemich]

Nope, I don't consider that expensive at all for a completely customizable Digital Cinema ready solution.

This isn't a mass produced piece of equipment and therefore cannot use economies of scale that cameras like Sony's Z1, Panasonic's DVX-series et al can.

RED produces higher end products for a higher end market and should be able to recoup costs (and profits) as such.

[Rick Bolton]

Shaun - you must be slurping the KOOLAID :-)

Lets get back to the tenet of the discussion - prosumer cameras that could / should have many of the compromises we are being served resolved.

The Red One and most of their offerings - especially when fully configured - cost big $$$ in the context of this discussion. Scarlet - tbd still.

So Red is $$$$$$ - only the purchaser can decide if it is worth it.

[Shaun Roemich]

Allow me to put things in perspective from where I come/came from:

When I started in industry in 1998, the industry standard was BetacamSP. A CHEAP BetaSP camera like the UVW100 was in the neighbourhood of $20k and a lens (1/2") was about $10k. Plus "chocolate bar" batteries (NP1's) at about $200 each that gave you a run time of about 45 minutes BRAND NEW.

Pro BetaSP cameras like the BVW600 were $70k+, lenses were $25k+. Tripods were Sachtlers or Millers and cost more than $10k. VTRs were the BVW-75 at $50k+ or the UVW-1000 at about $15k. Remember, you couldn't play back in camera. You wanted to edit Non-Linear? AVIDs STARTED at $50k.

Then the Sony VX1000 came along. For $5k.

NONE of us at the time thought it was the same quality BUT we decided on a gig-by-gig basis whether to use the VX-1000 we ALL went out and bought OR rent the BVW600.

We have come a LONG way in just 10 years. My first year out of media college I spent $20k of my own money on gear and got a barely passable camera kit with sketchy tripod and BAD wireless audio and a second hand Apple G3 computer with 15" LCD and FCP 1.0.2. One second cross dissolves took 5 seconds to render and they NEEDED to render (this is DV... not SD uncompressed, remember).

So my position is: buy what you can afford and charge accordingly. Rent what you'd LIKE when you need to. Standard rental on items is in the 3 - 5% of gross cost range. SO: if you shoot 20 days a year and charging appropriately, you can pay off your purchase in one year. If you're shooting less than that, you shouldn't own a camera anyway. Rent.

Thus endeth the sermon.

[Rick Bolton]

Shaun - not received as a sermon - you simply shared that your views are what they are because of where you were when. Technology growth is exponential - not geometric - the time to get past all theses compromises is here - the technology & price points would allow for this - especially from Canon, Panasonic, SONY,...

It is - IMO - a product marketing conspiracy to maximize profits - a cartel to control the release of innovation. We still have camera manufacturers pixel shifting with complex diagonal algorithms to deliver 1920 x 1080.

Maybe I watched too many X-Files.

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Rick Bolton

Maybe I watched too many X-Files.

The truth IS out there...

[Chris Hurd]

Originally Posted by Rick Bolton

Shaun - you must be slurping the KOOLAID :-)

Please don't make such a remark on this site. I don't care how many smilies you put behind it, this type of comment has no business being here. I normally delete such statements and I have shut down accounts over this sort of thing. I left it in place here this time because I wanted to point out just how far off base it is.

The RED One is the *single least expensive* Ultra-HD digital cinematography camera on the market today. Its $17,500 price tag is incredibly low and highly affordable relative to other camera systems in its class. And I'm never quite sure what the ages and experience levels of some of our members are, so I'm going to whip out my old fart hat and put it on now.

There was a time barely fifteen years ago when the going standard for entry-level broadcast quality was a Sony Beta SP camera package which would have cost you $40,000+ fully kitted out. And that's for standard definition analog video. Just eight years ago if you wanted to shoot High definition at 24P, your best bet was the Panasonic Varicam. A complete package with HD lens put you in the $90,000 ballpark. I know a husband and wife cinematographer team in Hollywood who put their house up for collateral in order to secure the SBA loan to buy one. Four years ago if you wanted to shoot 4K Ultra-HD, your choices were a handful of $100,000+ camera options. RED changed all of that by offering 4K Ultra-HD in a camera body that costs roughly the same as a mid-level HDCAM or DVCPRO HD camera. What they've done in terms of lowering the cost for entry into Ultra-HD is truly remarkable... to characterize it as "expensive" is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about the reality of the Ultra-HD acquisition landscape. It may be out of your budget, but it certainly isn't expensive.

Shaun hasn't been "drinking the Koolaid," he's simply experienced enough to know what's up. And let it be known that I'll close the account of any person here who makes that sort of remark about a fellow member... smilies or no. Okay, the old fart hat is off and now we can go back to our regular programming.

[William Hohauser]

The gap between "prosumer" and "professional" will probably always remain since the category of "prosumer" came into existence. Look at it this way, if too many features of pro equipment make their way into prosumer models the market for professional cameras will drop below profitable. Many of the great improvements in prosumer equipment come from research made possible thru profits from the pro division. Eliminate those profits by making prosumer equipment "too good" and you'll see the great leaps forward we've seen in the past 20 years slow way down.

Owning something isn't always the best way to run a business or your life. I will never own a camera that costs more than $10,000 since I can always rent a better camera when the budget is there. I did 3 four camera shoots last year and none so far this year due to the economy, good thing I only own one of those cameras.

Own what you can write off in a reasonable amount of time, three to five years. If you can't do that and get the quality you want for a particular project, rent or put the project on the back-burner.

[Robert Rogoz]

Chris, you sound a bit like my old boss, who used to work 100 hours a week and always looked at me crooked when I said I was off climbing for a weekend. Just because the gear used to cost a lot in the past doesn't mean it still has to. First of all if you compare HM100 to RED1 it's like comparing a formula one car to Toyota Tercel. Maybe there would be a comparison between say PDW700 and RED, or something along these lines, but in no way you can do that with HM100 or even 700.

Also notice, that unlike in other industries the payments for content or the wages for workers actually are down from the early to mid 90's. I used to work on movies as a grip way back when and the day rate was usually 500. Now you are lucky if you get 400, but mostly I saw 350 range.(of course I am talking non-union). Also in the past buyers like Discovery Channel would purchase 3 one hour episodes (I mean 44 minutes) for roughly 100K. Try to get it now- good luck, unless you have something on par with Deadliest Catch. The strength is in numbers, so people try to generate as much programming as they can, hence it's a big part of having so much garbage on TV. But also we have to keep a keen eye on equipment cost.

Back to the topic: is HM100 a good cam? It is OK, but not great. It could be much, much better. I strongly believe the technology is already there, but like a lot of users here think, it's just trickling down. Maybe corporations like JVC want to get as much $$$, but as a consumer I want to get in return as much value as I can. Things change, beta cams are gone, analog is no longer a broadcast standard. And it is no longer seller market, it's buyers market. I vote with my dollars, my right. Since I know JVC and other companies visit this site, this is my way telling them: I want more value for my $$$.

[Steve Cottrell]

Originally Posted by Lynne Whelden

What triggered this dialogue was my seeing Steve Cotrell's post on getting his head around the f-stop exposure and its not posting a real-time read-out. My heart sank because I'd really been wanting to believe the HM100 was "the one."

I've been quoted in a post on DVInfo :-))) Is it okay to say that I had a glass of Kool Aid to celebrate? Well, it would have been back in the 1970s when I was growing up in Cupertino CA. That's a long time ago and now I'm back home in England where we don't say Kool Aid very much, but we do say fart quite a lot. I hope Chris doesn't cut me adrift for this!!

Regarding the HM-100 as 'the one'....noooooo. Keep the cigar in the box just yet. But it's pretty close as a B cam. To be honest, it's a real joy to use - so novel after having Sony ballast on my shoulder for years (BVW-600, DNW-xxx - forget the model - Beta SX, and now a DSR-450 with radio mic and Anton Bauer Hytron 140's - *that's* heavy!) and so much fun to use. You can get shots physically impossible with a larger camera and 1/2 inch or 2/3 inch lens. I keep the wide angle adapter on it all the time. I take off the handle and use it on a pole. I strap it to anything and everything. Okay, it won't do manual like a big camera, but that's not what it's good at. Manual can be fudged with it, so that's cool for me. The bonus is that it can do loads of things a big camera can't. So in that sense it's a perfect camera. I can even give it to a child who has never held a camera before, and get usable footage! I work alongside VJ's shooting Z-5's and they **love** the size of the HM-100.

It might not be 'the one' but it's certainly one of 'the few' :-)

*hic*

Cotty

[Lynne Whelden]

Remember that "the one" should be lightweight--like under 3 pounds. The RED isn't and I doubt if Scarlet will be. I agree the prosumer/professional division has become artificial and the high end serves to funnel profits to the companies.

I had an MRI done last week and it revealed 2 herniated discs in my lower back and 3 buldging discs in the cervical (neck) area. I can place the blame squarely on the RCA TK-76 (30 pounds) I used to tote around. That is the reason why I need a lightweight camera if I'm to continue in the profession. And I'm sure I'm not alone in that regard.

Come to think of it, is there ANY company out there that makes a great product at an affordable price and keeps putting it out year after year with few changes?

[Steve Cottrell]

Originally Posted by Lynne Whelden

Come to think of it, is there ANY company out there that makes a great product at an affordable price and keeps putting it out year after year with few changes?

I've been hankering after one of these for years :-)

[Shaun Roemich]

Originally Posted by Lynne Whelden

the high end serves to funnel profits to the companies

I suspect exactly the opposite is true: the consumer/prosumer markets probably foster the finances and the high end fosters the technological innovation that trickles down into the consumer/prosumer.

Just like Honda's racing involvement probably doesn't make them a ton of cash but the lessons they learn and the innovations they develop are probably what makes for a bulletproof Honda Accord that sells millions every year.

Again, I could EASILY be wrong but I don't buy into the suggestion that companies are raking in the cash from sales of a handful of high end tech devices that they will never sell more than a virtual "handful" of.