Jump to content


Photo

Bouncers kicked out SONY


  • Please log in to reply
135 replies to this topic

#1 Richard Salsburg

Richard Salsburg

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Student

Posted 20 April 2007 - 11:56 PM

I was at the RED screening Thursday and when I got into the screening room I was shocked to see that one of the RED bouncers came in, asked a man to see his badge, and as soon as he revealed that he was with SONY they asked him to leave. Am I wrong or isn't this highly against NAB policy? I thought this convention was supposed to be an open forum. What is RED's reasoning for this? As a student I love everything that they are doing with the industry but I have to say that I found this more than a little out of whack.
  • 0

#2 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 April 2007 - 12:47 AM

I was at the RED screening Thursday and when I got into the screening room I was shocked to see that one of the RED bouncers came in, asked a man to see his badge, and as soon as he revealed that he was with SONY they asked him to leave. Am I wrong or isn't this highly against NAB policy? I thought this convention was supposed to be an open forum. What is RED's reasoning for this? As a student I love everything that they are doing with the industry but I have to say that I found this more than a little out of whack.

Well its pretty obvious Sony will want to weigh up and copy the competition and when they do then the big red technology will be mass produced at a fraction of the price. Not really surpriing that red want a head start at making as much money as possible before the competition take over.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 April 2007 - 02:02 AM

Well its pretty obvious Sony will want to weigh up and copy the competition and when they do then the big red technology will be mass produced at a fraction of the price.


Unlikely because there is no mass-production market for cine cameras, digital or not -- this isn't a consumer camcorder. Their cine digital camera, the F23, costs nearly $200,000 and the RED body is $17,500, so exactly how is Sony going to figure out how to make a 4K camera for one-tenth the cost of their 1080P camera... and even if they did, would they release it and thus undercut their more expensive pro camera CineAlta line? I think it's more likely that Sony will just go back to concentrating on consumer and pro broadcast equipment and leave the digital cine cameras to other niche companies.
  • 0

#4 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 April 2007 - 03:59 AM

Unlikely because there is no mass-production market for cine cameras, digital or not -- this isn't a consumer camcorder. Their cine digital camera, the F23, costs nearly $200,000 and the RED body is $17,500, so exactly how is Sony going to figure out how to make a 4K camera for one-tenth the cost of their 1080P camera... and even if they did, would they release it and thus undercut their more expensive pro camera CineAlta line? I think it's more likely that Sony will just go back to concentrating on consumer and pro broadcast equipment and leave the digital cine cameras to other niche companies.

Well then we will have to agree to disagree as studios will not buy video cameras that are just as expensive as a camera that can do the same and a whole lot more. In fact the red camera will become the standard with cheaper variations coming from it. This camera will blow apart sonys hold within this market some may say they deserve it we all know the minor improvements every year to encourage everyone to buy the latest best camera. Well this camera throws the lot out the window. Saying its not a consumer camera is not much use because it soon will be. If sony want to compete they will have to get hold of the technology and do it cheaper and to a wider market If they dont someone else will its about making the best of a very bad situation for them.
  • 0

#5 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 April 2007 - 06:26 AM

From my experience at shows, you wouldn't learn much more about the technology than by looking at pictures and reading articles. If Sony wanted to learn more, they'd be best buying a RED and stripping it apart - I'd assume they've got a RED on order already. More likely these Sony people were just curious and having a look around. Any real "undercover" people would've been doing their business without RED realizing.

I don't think RED are claiming their planned mini camera to be for the consumer market. Certainly the size alone will prevent the current RED or any 35mm sensor camera from becoming a consumer camera. The 1/3" cameras are much more handy for your hols and they won't strain your computer when editing. However, RED will want to have a big enough production volume to keep their own sensor unit costs down and a small, stripped down camera would have a place in the market.

Edited by Brian Drysdale, 21 April 2007 - 06:29 AM.

  • 0

#6 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 April 2007 - 06:39 AM

From my experience at shows, you wouldn't learn much more about the technology than by looking at pictures and reading articles. If Sony wanted to learn more, they'd be best buying a RED and stripping it apart - I'd assume they've got a RED on order already. More likely these Sony people were just curious and having a look around. Any real "undercover" people would've been doing their business without RED realizing.

I don't think RED are claiming their planned mini camera to be for the consumer market. Certainly the size alone will prevent the current RED or any 35mm sensor camera from becoming a consumer camera. The 1/3" cameras are much more handy for your hols and they won't strain your computer when editing. However, RED will want to have a big enough production volume to keep their own sensor unit costs down and having a small, stripped down camera will have a place in the market.

Nice if the world was like that! Unfortunatly the world of business means the cheapest way of doing something in combination with market forces makes it inevitable. Sony want a peek at it to get an assesment of its size and weight etc. Undoubtably one is on order or if not THEY will pay someone who has. I wouldnt be surprised if someone doesn't attempt to steal one and sell it to an interested buyer. Maybe even someone from red themselves. Red need to be very very cautious. Hence the bouncers. If red can make this camera for $17000 Imagine how much cheaper Japan or even China can make it for. The lenses can be bought cheaply from russia. everything works down from this camera and to the capture source the consumer wants. NO Camera will have an excuse to cost more than this for whats on offer and that goes for Film cameras too.

Edited by Mark Williams, 21 April 2007 - 06:41 AM.

  • 0

#7 Tom York

Tom York
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Producer

Posted 21 April 2007 - 06:51 AM

I wouldnt be surprised if someone doesn't attempt to steal one and sell it to an interested buyer. Maybe even someone from red themselves.


Didn't someone already steal a Red prototype a while back from their HQ? I wonder if it was a competitor.
  • 0

#8 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 April 2007 - 06:57 AM

The important point is that quality wise the first 80% anything is relatively cheap, getting the last 20% is much more expensive and can cost a lot more than the 80% Unfortunately, professionals operate using gear that uses the last 20%. If RED sets a certain standard, other camera manufacturers will push the envelope so that other, more expensive specs, are put into their products intended for the high end market.

So far, no one has said where components of the RED are manufactured, usually these things are pretty international.

To date, RED seem to have kept their costs down by not having dealers. Once you have these and other back up services in place, the purchasing costs tend rise. Sony have an extensive range of dealers plus a world wide network, which add massively to their costs. However, Sony do have a habit of catching up.
  • 0

#9 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:09 AM

Didn't someone already steal a Red prototype a while back from their HQ? I wonder if it was a competitor.

Tom I reckon they might have one in their workshop already. Possibly taken from borrowed plans. Perhaps they knew all along how to make a camera like this. Red would have been better to negotiate a deal with sony and kept it off the market. They would have made more money and the film industry would have been more secure. Not that Im advocating doing this but thats the way business often works.


Brian the only thing that seems to cost a lot of money appears to be the CMOS chip? The rest being standard or relatively cheap parts with a very nice expensive looking housing? Perhaps I'm wrong but thats how it looks to me?
  • 0

#10 David Venhaus

David Venhaus
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 129 posts
  • Other
  • Wiseburn, CA

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:09 AM

Corporate espionage is very real but they play from the same playbook as the CIA or the former KGB. If Sony was really concerned with red, they would, along time ago, have/had mole(s) in place, phone lines at red would have been tapped or bugged, their computers, email, files would have been secretly hacked, etc, you get my drift. I doubt that the people with Sony badges were out to spy on them, but that's just my opinion.
  • 0

#11 Tom York

Tom York
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Producer

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:31 AM

I also think that the Sony people at the Red screening where just grunt employees genuenly interested in the Peter Jackon short and Red's accomplishments in general (I know I would be). Just because you work for Sony doesn't make you evil. From what I've seen the Red camp can be too touchy-feely and with no sense of humor when it comes to anything that might disparage their baby. Over at the Reduser forum I have seen several posts dissapear just because they contained something slightly negative. They even took down a thread that contained a link to a picture of their EVF that was not approved even though the camera has already been shown in the open. First the link itself had been removed, but then people started to question their touchy-feelyness so they just took the whole thread down.

Kind of reminds me of the Chinese government.
  • 0

#12 Carl Brighton

Carl Brighton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 222 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera

Posted 21 April 2007 - 07:33 AM

I was at the RED screening Thursday and when I got into the screening room I was shocked to see that one of the RED bouncers came in, asked a man to see his badge, and as soon as he revealed that he was with SONY they asked him to leave. Am I wrong or isn't this highly against NAB policy? I thought this convention was supposed to be an open forum. What is RED's reasoning for this? As a student I love everything that they are doing with the industry but I have to say that I found this more than a little out of whack.

Couldn't have happened to a nicer company! :lol:
Look, I think what other people have said was probably right, they were probably just guys from the Sony stand on their lunch break, come in to see what all the fuss was about. If Sony really wanted to spy on the RED, it would have been easy enough to organize some bogus name tags.
Sounds more like somebody there made a call, that in hindsight might not reflect too well on the company.
  • 0

#13 Alexander Joyce

Alexander Joyce
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Oslo, Norway

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:14 AM

Red might have made a great camera, but if this is how they are acting. Kicking out competitors from their stand and deleting posts off a user forum then who on earth would want to buy anything from them?

Just because you work for Sony doesn't make you evil.


Not so sure about that :ph34r:
  • 0

#14 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:20 AM

Brian the only thing that seems to cost a lot of money appears to be the CMOS chip? The rest being standard or relatively cheap parts with a very nice expensive looking housing? Perhaps I'm wrong but thats how it looks to me?


How much you sell something for isn't based on the price of the components. If this mark up worries you, it might best if you avoided products like popcorn, confectionery, fizzy drinks and bottled water. Never mine well known clothes brands manufactured in the third world.

If they're using cheap components, I'd expect the performance of their camera to suffer over the longer term. You've also got to factor in R & D, manufacturing, quality control and other costs.

As I mentioned before, RED doesn't have (At least currently) a large organisation to add overheads to its costs. If they begin dealing with the broadcasters, they'll have to ensure that they've got a support organization in place. Even as things stand, they'll have to set up service centres around the world, because the time delays and costs in freighting cameras to the US for repair will be a negative factor in the longer term.
  • 0

#15 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:42 AM

How much you sell something for isn't based on the price of the components. If this mark up worries you, it might best if you avoided products like popcorn, confectionery, fizzy drinks and bottled water. Never mine well known clothes brands manufactured in the third world.

If they're using cheap components, I'd expect the performance of their camera to suffer over the longer term. You've also got to factor in R & D, manufacturing, quality control and other costs.

As I mentioned before, RED doesn't have (At least currently) a large organisation to add overheads to its costs. If they begin dealing with the broadcasters, they'll have to ensure that they've got a support organization in place. Even as things stand, they'll have to set up service centres around the world, because the time delays and costs in freighting cameras to the US for repair will be a negative factor in the longer term.


I'm not saying the Chip is a cheap part. Its likely to be very expensive. However the rest can be the highest quality but still relatively cheap. Thats what I meant when I said relative. Relative as in the cost of the camera and where the money goes. What I can see and only my opinion is much has been spent on the quality but that is still probably minimal in terms of development and manufacturing costs and is the reason I said the opposition in countries like Japan even China will be able to copy this much cheaper.
  • 0

#16 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:45 AM

I wouldnt be surprised if someone doesn't attempt to steal one and sell it to an interested buyer. Maybe even someone from red themselves. Red need to be very very cautious. Hence the bouncers. If red can make this camera for $17000 Imagine how much cheaper Japan or even China can make it for.

I don't think this is the appropriate forum for ridiculous spy theories.

No doubt Sony and other manufacturers will examine the Red, but let's face it, with a 17.5K price tag, it's much easier to buy it then to steal it. And personally I don't think one can push the price of this camera down even more, actually I wonder if Red is making a profit on the camera at all, once all the R&D cost are figured in.
  • 0

#17 Andrew Ray

Andrew Ray
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 April 2007 - 09:50 AM

Red might have made a great camera, but if this is how they are acting. Kicking out competitors from their stand and deleting posts off a user forum then who on earth would want to buy anything from them?
Not so sure about that :ph34r:


Richard, are you sure that the process of some guy taken out of the screening room was actually done because they wanted competitor out?

Maybe there was just one person taken out to talk to or someone wanted to give him some material or who knows what was meaning of this event.
How far you were from this person when he was asked to follow the bouncer?
Did you hear the conversation between them when they were leaving the screening room?

Andrew
  • 0

#18 Mark Williams

Mark Williams
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 811 posts
  • Director
  • United Kingdom

Posted 21 April 2007 - 10:06 AM

I don't think this is the appropriate forum for ridiculous spy theories.

No doubt Sony and other manufacturers will examine the Red, but let's face it, with a 17.5K price tag, it's much easier to buy it then to steal it. And personally I don't think one can push the price of this camera down even more, actually I wonder if Red is making a profit on the camera at all, once all the R&D cost are figured in.

Spy theories?

QUOTE
I wouldnt be surprised if someone doesn't attempt to steal one and sell it to an interested buyer. Maybe even someone from red themselves. Red need to be very very cautious. Hence the bouncers.
--------------------------------

Nothing here about spies? And a Camera has already been stolen?

If one were stolen it would be worth more than the list price on the black market to the opposition and that would be the most likeliest reason if one were stolen at this point in time.

QUOTE
And personally I don't think one can push the price of this camera down even more, actually I wonder if Red is making a profit on the camera at all, once all the R&D cost are figured in.

-----------------------------------------------
I realize this is a personal opinion but based on what? What do you think is costing this amount?

Edited by Mark Williams, 21 April 2007 - 10:09 AM.

  • 0

#19 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5070 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 April 2007 - 10:20 AM

-----------------------------------------------
I realize this is a personal opinion but based on what? What technology do you think is costing this amount?


Unfortunately, there is also an intellectual input and a key RED person has said that one of the key elements with the RED (and I'll assume the same applies to SI) has been the development their wavelet compression.

If they hadn't developed this, their 4k sensor would outputting data way beyond the capacity of their current market.
  • 0

#20 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19769 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 April 2007 - 10:23 AM

This is a cinematography forum -- wild theories of corporate espionage may be fun to talk about, but it's not responsible professionally, nor does it come off as particularly mature.

Like I said, what would Sony's motivation be to come out with a high-quality 4K camera that was in the under $17,000 price range, thus destroying their profitable pro camera division that makes them millions if not billions of dollars? They would make sure such a camera was hobbled in some way so as to not compete with their more expensive product line.

Sony has no intention of becoming a smaller company that only makes cheap cameras. And there is no mass-market for digital cinema cameras. And the average consumer doesn't want to take their vacation videos on a 4K camera with 35mm lenses.

And Max is right -- Sony can buy any camera that hits the market and reverse engineer it if they wanted to. But Sony never does anything that they can't fit into their larger broadcast product line -- they sell entire systems from shooting to mastering for TV stations and whatnot. They wouldn't just drop an atomic bomb themselves on their own system. After the F23, they'll probably come out with their own single-sensor 4K camera, load it with features, tie it into their post product lines, sell it for over $100,000... and convince the studios that it's somehow safer to use than something made by a small upstart company. And companies with deep pockets will somehow feel more comfortable overspending on something like that.

Now I admit that there is also the chance that cameras like RED will just destroy the market for expensive HD camera equipment and create major alterations to the current power structure that we can't even imagine.
  • 0


Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Visual Products

CineTape

Glidecam

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Opal

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Wooden Camera

Metropolis Post

Aerial Filmworks

Glidecam

CineTape

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Technodolly

CineLab

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Visual Products

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

Paralinx LLC