Jump to content


Photo

RED schedule, sort of....


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Carl Brighton

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

Posted 22 June 2007 - 10:53 PM

Quoting Jannard on reduser.net"

Cameras for movie production- now to July 30th. These cameras will have limited features. Not enough for production cameras but enough to shoot a major motion picture. We will get valuable "field test" information from these projects.

Production camera schedule:
Serial numbers 1 (mine)-50 August 30th (50 units)
Serial numbers 51-100 September 15th (50 units)
Serial numbers 101-300 October 10th (200 units)
Serial numbers 301- 700 November 10th (400 units)
Serial numbers 701- 1200 December 10th (500 units)
Serial numbers 1201- 1700 January 10th (500 units)
Serial numbers 1701- 2200 February 10th (500 units)
Serial numbers 2201- 2700 March 10th (500 units)
Serial numbers 2701- 3400 April 10th (700 units)
Serial numbers 3401- 4100 May 10th (700 units)


I suppose the question really is: "When is somebody actually going get their hands on a camera and be asked for their $16,000 (plus applicable state taxes ). Or: "When does the name Reduser.net acquire meaning?" :rolleyes: Apparently: "Sometime between now and August 30th."

Jannard basically says #50 will be delivered by August 30, then another 50 in the next two weeks, 200 the next month, then 400 the month after that, then 500 per month for four months then 700 per month.

He says he only has actual orders for about 2,000 units, so I presume he's expecting an upsurge in orders once people actually see the camera working in a real-world environment.

Oh well, my work is done now:-) I guess I'll just sit back now and enjoy the flood of First-Class Indy productions sure to come surging my way.
  • 0

#2 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 June 2007 - 11:58 AM

Wow, Jim is sitting on $71, 750, 000.00!!!

R,
  • 0

#3 Stephen Williams

Stephen Williams
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4708 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Europe

Posted 23 June 2007 - 12:14 PM

Wow, Jim is sitting on $71, 750, 000.00!!!

R,


Richard,

Only $2,000,000 in deposits, small change relative to the $1,300,000,000 (less tax) Jim will get from the sale of his Oakley shares.

Stephen
  • 0

#4 Richard Boddington

Richard Boddington
  • Sustaining Members
  • 5482 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 June 2007 - 12:36 PM

I was thinking if Jim collects full price on 4100 orders.

Either way, yes, pocket change compared to Oakley.

R,
  • 0

#5 Gary McClurg

Gary McClurg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 304 posts
  • Producer

Posted 23 June 2007 - 01:56 PM

The only thing Carl missed in his information... that if you want a total working camera... they'll hold your camera... until all the bugs are worked out... then ship you yours...

Again... just a question... I can see where a major rental house could put $20k on the line for the camera and recording drives.... since they have all the goodies, matte box, follow focus, lens already... on a lets say 3/4 working camera.

And for the small guy... yeah Peter Jackson shot with it... but Peter Jackson probably has a thicker wallet than most of us on this forum... to fix anything... either shooting film or 4k...

I keep wondering if half these people have thought of what happens if their camera goes down... will they be able to rent one from somone else... please this is not a knock... but if this camera is going to take over the market like some say... I'd say good luck until a few thousand get out...

Or the renter is going to get top dollar... plus if these smaller guys purchased add on's they're going to want to rent those also to recoup their costs on such items ... so its a full package rental... not a body only rental...

But hey what do I know... or I never thought about how many sunglasses you could sell around the world either... to be able to sell your company for over $2b cash... :lol:

Edited by Gary McClurg, 23 June 2007 - 01:58 PM.

  • 0

#6 Brian Drysdale

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

Posted 23 June 2007 - 02:22 PM

If you check further into that Reduser thread you'll find that RED currently have around 2000 reservations and orders.

http://www.reduser.n...h...2971&page=6

The schedule's numbers were to give a "feel for production". I think the idea was to give potential purchasers some idea regarding delivery plans over the next year.

Edited by Brian Drysdale, 23 June 2007 - 02:26 PM.

  • 0

#7 Jay A. Kelley

Jay A. Kelley
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 25 posts
  • Director

Posted 23 June 2007 - 08:22 PM

Oh well, my work is done now:-) I guess I'll just sit back now and enjoy the flood of First-Class Indy productions sure to come surging my way.



Quoting Jannard on reduser.net
RED will be used more on the "Wanted" set as we come out of engineering hold. New cameras leave for Prague tomorrow.

Steven Soderbergh has given permission for me to say that he will shoot "The Argentine" and "Guerrilla" on RED. That's assuming we can get him cameras on time! :-)

There will be a couple of other announcements as soon as we get permission from the studios.

Jim

There you go Carl, we certainly would not want to let you down after all this! It' not a flood, but it's a start!

Jay
  • 0

#8 Carl Brighton

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

Posted 24 June 2007 - 03:39 AM

There you go Carl, we certainly would not want to let you down after all this! It' not a flood, but it's a start!

Jay

Huh? I'm not talking about films like THAT, with a crew of 25 or maybe even 50 or more people and a budget in excess of $750,000! From what I've been reading here, once you own a RED, you can make nine-figure grossing blockbusters with a budget of only $50!

Seriously, if you've got enough money to shoot a decent movie, you're not going to care about the acquisition cost. (Or has somebody already made that point:-)

Same old story. Yeah it might be OK if you shoot it with a video camera, and it might not. If it looks like crap because you shot it on video, nobody is going to give you a second chance at making it. It would take a braver man than me (or one considerably less well-informed) to make a decision like that.
  • 0

#9 Adam Thompson

Adam Thompson
  • Sustaining Members
  • 161 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 24 June 2007 - 10:42 PM

Quoting Jannard on reduser.net
RED will be used more on the "Wanted" set as we come out of engineering hold. New cameras leave for Prague tomorrow.

Steven Soderbergh has given permission for me to say that he will shoot "The Argentine" and "Guerrilla" on RED. That's assuming we can get him cameras on time! :-)

There will be a couple of other announcements as soon as we get permission from the studios.

Jim

There you go Carl, we certainly would not want to let you down after all this! It' not a flood, but it's a start!

Jay


Seems kinda fishy that someone like Soderburg, with the budget he'd have, etc, would shoot a big studio film with an unproven camera that he's never shot with, along with a workflow he hasn't tried yet. Or maybe he's just trying to be cool and edgy again like when he shot that little (horrible looking) film with the Canon XL1?
  • 0

#10 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 24 June 2007 - 11:16 PM

I don't see what's "fishy" about it. You're talking about a director who shoots his own movies and has experimented with a wide number of formats and techniques in the past.

I'm sure he'll shoot some tests, hire a post supervisor, develop a post plan for the project, and then start shooting his movie. Someone has to be the first to shoot a feature with the camera, afterall.
  • 0

#11 Brian Drysdale

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

Posted 25 June 2007 - 05:10 AM

I don't see what's "fishy" about it. You're talking about a director who shoots his own movies and has experimented with a wide number of formats and techniques in the past.

I'm sure he'll shoot some tests, hire a post supervisor, develop a post plan for the project, and then start shooting his movie. Someone has to be the first to shoot a feature with the camera, afterall.


I'd imagine the completion bond companies will insist on comprehensive pre shoot tests. Quite an amount of ground work in high end "data" digital production has been done by the Viper, although it took quite some time before it got accepted to shoot a feature film.

I could be wrong, I don't think the Dalsa has yet got a feature film as the main camera. Both the RED and SI have an integrated approach with their workflow, which may be the reason that RED has been able to make this leap.
  • 0

#12 Mitch Gross

Mitch Gross
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2873 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:29 AM

What makes anyone think that he asn"t already performed these tests? Studios require them as well.
  • 0

#13 Brian Drysdale

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

Posted 25 June 2007 - 07:32 AM

What makes anyone think that he asn"t already performed these tests? Studios require them as well.



Personally, I'd be surprised if he hasn't already tested the RED.
  • 0

#14 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 June 2007 - 11:36 AM

I don't see what's "fishy" about it. You're talking about a director who shoots his own movies and has experimented with a wide number of formats and techniques in the past.


One might as well say shooting "Sex, Lies...." at all was fishy but it put Soderberg (and Sundance) on the map.. I don't see anything inconsistent with his methods here. Anyway he shot a feature with an XL-1,
right ?

Besides, if he doesn't quite like the look from Redcode he can always film out to 5285 and cross process it :)

-Sam
  • 0

#15 Zakaree Sandberg

Zakaree Sandberg
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 26 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • orange county,ca

Posted 25 June 2007 - 12:59 PM

Richard,

Only $2,000,000 in deposits, small change relative to the $1,300,000,000 (less tax) Jim will get from the sale of his Oakley shares.

Stephen


hes not selling HIS shares.. he is selling the remainder shares of the company.
  • 0

#16 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19761 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 25 June 2007 - 06:24 PM

"zakaree" -- it's time to update your Display Name to a real first and last name as per the forum rules. I'm sure this isn't the first time it's been mentioned. Thanks.
  • 0

#17 Michael Zasadzinski

Michael Zasadzinski

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 25 June 2007 - 08:55 PM

Seriously, if you've got enough money to shoot a decent movie, you're not going to care about the acquisition cost. (Or has somebody already made that point:-)



Maybe I'm misreading you, but you do realize that Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson, and countless others all got their start making films where the acquisition cost was a significant part of the budget? In other words, ultra low budget movies?
  • 0

#18 Werner Klipsch

Werner Klipsch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:45 AM

And so, when DOES the first Depositor actually get to take delivery of his RED? It seems we hear when #50 gets delivered, and #1 is Jannard's and # zero is a museum piece already :rolleyes: but no word on the first one. You would think that would be a celebrated moment. Perhaps JJ could deliver in person.

Who IS the "Alpha" Depositor? Please come forward introduce yourself.

And after all the fanfare and trumpeting, ten other people get to try out a RED before the patient deposit holders! IS there no justice? On bigtime moneybags films, none of your true believing indy stuff :rolleyes:

But anyway Mr Jannard, how have you addressed the following:

* Auto-compensation for cosmic ray or static zaps?
* What is the acceptable dead/sick pixel rate?
* What happens when your customer opens his box to find a dead RED. Which Ghostbusters do he call?
* What is the Warranty?
* What is the repair turnaround? In other words, the minimum if something simple?
* Have you prepared EMC documentation to IEC and European Standards?
* Is there service anywhere but California?
* Will you sell spare parts to other parties for repairs?
* etc etc :lol:

And if any of you want to be critical of me for asking such questions, well, you probably deserve what you get :blink:
  • 0

#19 Werner Klipsch

Werner Klipsch
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Other

Posted 26 June 2007 - 04:57 AM

Maybe I'm misreading you, but you do realize that Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson, and countless others all got their start making films where the acquisition cost was a significant part of the budget? In other words, ultra low budget movies?


Who is going to give complete beginners $100 million to make a film? Every successful film maker starts out that way!
If they have talent it glows through the makeshift budget, and with film, there is no ultra-low-budget.
I fear all that will happen is that any new "Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson" -s will be drowned out by the noise of a wave of no-talent fanboys with cheap video cameras.
Bah, that is already happening! Why do you think people struggle for a 16mm film budget, when video would be cheaper. Because they can then say: "This was shot on film". Not because it will look better so much, but that it will get looked at at all :lol:
  • 0

#20 Mark Williams

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

Posted 26 June 2007 - 06:08 AM

Who is going to give complete beginners $100 million to make a film? Every successful film maker starts out that way!
If they have talent it glows through the makeshift budget, and with film, there is no ultra-low-budget.
I fear all that will happen is that any new "Stanley Kubrick, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Christopher Nolan, Wes Anderson" -s will be drowned out by the noise of a wave of no-talent fanboys with cheap video cameras.
Bah, that is already happening! Why do you think people struggle for a 16mm film budget, when video would be cheaper. Because they can then say: "This was shot on film". Not because it will look better so much, but that it will get looked at at all :lol:

I disagree If you want to be a film director follow this how to guide

http://www.exposure....rect/index.html
  • 0


Metropolis Post

Technodolly

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

FJS International, LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Glidecam

Visual Products

The Slider

CineLab

Opal

Abel Cine

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

CineTape

Ritter Battery

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Paralinx LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Abel Cine

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

FJS International, LLC

Tai Audio

Wooden Camera

Opal

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

CineLab

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

The Slider