Jump to content


Photo

So Panavision underbid REDs, should I be offended?


  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#1 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 21 December 2008 - 12:22 PM

So here I am, doing some dealing with a feature project, and the fun part is that I am totally underbid. You know, to the level that I really cannot compete. And guess what, it's not some RED dude with a cam he cannot emply, doing this, but Panavision UK.

Thing is, I do NOT feel hurt. BUT I'd rather like to pit the Genesis against RED in my own test. You know... Just for fun. And what really annoys me, is that I cannot get to that. NOT that they chose Panavision, which I am sure is a good choice.

Question:
Does that ake me a RED defaitist?

G
  • 0

#2 Stephen Williams

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

Posted 21 December 2008 - 12:59 PM

Hi Gunleik,

Panavision have a store full of lights, lenses & grip equipment all paid for long ago. Historically features usually pay 4 - 6 days a month with loads of kit thrown in for free. For sure they can include a RED one body free, it only cost $17,500 which is nothing for them. I have known equipment supplied for free on a low budget production, where they either like the script or have a prior relationship with the DOP, Director or production company.

The rental business is generally not profitable (look at PV accounts for the last 10 years), many people thought buying a RED was a road to riches. Normally 1% before discounts is the day rate for equipment, people laughed at me here and on REDUSER in the past when I mentioned it, however that is the long term reality.

Best,

Stephen

So here I am, doing some dealing with a feature project, and the fun part is that I am totally underbid. You know, to the level that I really cannot compete. And guess what, it's not some RED dude with a cam he cannot emply, doing this, but Panavision UK.

Thing is, I do NOT feel hurt. BUT I'd rather like to pit the Genesis against RED in my own test. You know... Just for fun. And what really annoys me, is that I cannot get to that. NOT that they chose Panavision, which I am sure is a good choice.

Question:
Does that ake me a RED defaitist?

G


  • 0

#3 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 21 December 2008 - 02:45 PM

Yea, I had a friend the other day tell me things were slowing down and he was thinking about getting a RED. Of course I didn't ask him how he thought income would come in with a RED when it isn't coming in with anything else. These people all fell for grass roots marketing that said RED would be different and would replace film. Well it hasn't, nor will it. Like any other camera out there, it's just a tool, and in the end, teh best package for the best price wins (unless you actually think you are getting that much more picture for the money).

I equate REDs success to the HVX200. The HVX was marketed and used grass roots to make it seem like it was going to change the world. It sold a lot of cameras as a result. Never made the best picture, but more importantly, never changed the world, only allowed more people to make more crappy video that was somehow going to propel them into a carrer as a Hollywood filmmaker. RED is doing the same thing but promising even more return. But there is only one fallacy starting to show it's ugly head for all the grass roots marketing. It's just a tool. A tool advertised as exceeding everything out there. Sort of like the way they market 1080P TVs as 'better' than 720p. And it works, folks fall for it, and actually think they are watching a better quality picture.

I wouldn't be offended. Panavision makes a great package and I'd take it any day over most anything out there if the price was right. Somehow some folks equate resolution numbers to quality and inevitably, infallibility. I think that's where they miss the boat.
  • 0

#4 Max Jacoby

Max Jacoby
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2955 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 December 2008 - 03:25 PM

I think unless you are working on the project as Dop, it's very hard for individual owners to compete with rental companies. After all rental places have a wider selection of gear, like Stephen says, but more importantly, they provide peace of mind: if anything breaks down they'll get you a replacement straight away.
  • 0

#5 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 21 December 2008 - 03:51 PM

I equate REDs success to the HVX200. The HVX was marketed and used grass roots to make it seem like it was going to change the world. It sold a lot of cameras as a result. Never made the best picture, but more importantly, never changed the world, only allowed more people to make more crappy video that was somehow going to propel them into a carrer as a Hollywood filmmaker. RED is doing the same thing but promising even more return. But there is only one fallacy starting to show it's ugly head for all the grass roots marketing. It's just a tool. A tool advertised as exceeding everything out there. Sort of like the way they market 1080P TVs as 'better' than 720p. And it works, folks fall for it, and actually think they are watching a better quality picture.


Yeah look at all these gullible no-talent hacks and noobs using Red One. They are clearly delusional and will never amount to anything...

Posted Image

:rolleyes:
  • 0

#6 Dan Goulder

Dan Goulder
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1259 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 21 December 2008 - 04:23 PM

Yeah look at all these gullible no-talent hacks and noobs using Red One. They are clearly delusional and will never amount to anything...

Just for the sake of accuracy, after testing the Red camera, Lubezki and Malick decided to shoot the bulk of this movie in super 35.
  • 0

#7 Walter Graff

Walter Graff
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1334 posts
  • Other
  • New York City

Posted 21 December 2008 - 05:11 PM

Yeah look at all these gullible no-talent hacks and noobs using Red One. They are clearly delusional and will never amount to anything...

:rolleyes:

Sounds like the Rodriguez argument, aka "I made a movie for $6000 and now am a big Hollywood director and you can be too".

That is what the marketing of RED promises. No one should not follow their dreams. But lets be realistic, 99.9% of those who think RED is going to give them legitimacy are crazy, and those that have already established themselves and find themselves using RED are simply trying a new tool. Some like it and some say, what's the big deal.

I see a staggering number of those who hope to be something think if someone well known used it, then it must be what everyone should use. THIS IS A FALICY!! I remember how everyone gawked when Steven Spielberg supposedly bought a HVX200 as if that meant the entire film industry was going to follow suit. In the mean time I haven't seen any of his films shot on an HVX.

But like monkeys, humans work off the alpha system. It's why shows like Entertainment Tonight exist. If some Hollywood actor is doing it, it must be good. RED and others play off that monkey attitude and spend an awful lot of money to make sure their cameras get into the hands of alpha filmmakers so the bread and circus see it and say wow, look at that picture, I have to use that camera too cause that alpha filmmaker is and that means it MUST be good.

When you've been shooting for 25 years, you don't bow to a piece of equipment, you use what is right for the job, what you can afford, and what you find works for you. Maybe that's where the juxtaposition of this argument comes in.

That 'someone would rent a "lesser" package is beyond me', or so it goes. But 'lesser' is a state of mind. From what I have been seeing on boards all over, 99% of what folks shoot and call features are never made for anything more than a DVD. I saw one made by my cousins husband today and it was God aweful. Are some of these people kidding?

A Panavision camera does that quite well. It has become a standerd in the industry. And for the small percentage of films that have any legs and play in anything more than a theater in Alphabet City, they choose story, cinematography and talent that make a film worth it's title, and didn't think a camera was going to make anything they made better just because the camera could supposedly see detail no other camera could. The movie I saw today was shot on an HVX. It looked real good. Too bad everything else in the film sucked. If folks think a camera is going ot make a differnce, they only fooled themselves. It's no different than going to a bowling alley. You find a ball that fits your fingers. Some folks want the shiny colored balls even if it means going home with a blister. Shiny colored balls look cool. I'll play a better game because of it. More experienced bowlers see that need to stand out, and simply shrug their heads.

Sorry, I?m a pragmatist, and don?t follow what all the monkeys do. If you do that?s okay. But once again not to understand why a camera package would be picked over another just because of a mindset that has no legitimacy is frustrating for people like me who watch people go down entire paths based not on art but equipment. Equipment never made a movie. If it did the last credit in the opening titles would be ?cameras by?, but it?s not, it?s the last credit in the whole film and only a few ever care to read it. End of topic for me.
  • 0

#8 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 21 December 2008 - 05:55 PM

Just for the sake of accuracy, after testing the Red camera, Lubezki and Malick decided to shoot the bulk of this movie in super 35.


IIRC, Lubezki used the Red One to shoot a big Nike commercial with Fincher well after the testing with Malick. So he obviously is using it. Also, Malick and Lubezki did shoot scenes for Tree of Life on Red One. Whether they will make final cut, no one can say yet.

Walter, I really don't know what to say to that, so I will refrain from saying anything.
  • 0

#9 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 21 December 2008 - 06:30 PM

You know, to the level that I really cannot compete. And guess what, it's not some RED dude with a cam he cannot emply, doing this, but Panavision UK.

I wonder where they they got them from.
Do you think they just placed an order, or did they take them off somebody's hands or acquire them in a takeover.
Given that Panavision could still make money if they just rented accessories and gave you the camera bodies for free, the RED could be a real winner for them!
  • 0

#10 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 21 December 2008 - 06:32 PM

Walter, I really don't know what to say to that, so I will refrain from saying anything.

Terrific post Walter! :lol:
  • 0

#11 Matt Workman

Matt Workman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 421 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • NYC

Posted 21 December 2008 - 07:05 PM

New York is similar. I can get a RED body and RED accessories (EVF, LCD, HD, Cards, etc.) for $400-600. /day But then the lenses, mattebox, accesories, support, etc. are the expensive part and usually end up closer to $1000 - 2000 or more depending on the rental house.

Also, just like the when the HVX200 came out there is a demand for people with Mac Book Pros, FCP2.0, and an understanding of the newest unsupported HD workflow. :ph34r:

Happy Holidays!

Matt
  • 0

#12 Kevin Zanit

Kevin Zanit
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1223 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • LA

Posted 21 December 2008 - 07:24 PM

IIRC^2, I was on some of that Nike commercial, I would put money on Lubezki still choosing film if given the choice . . .
  • 0

#13 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 21 December 2008 - 07:38 PM

IIRC^2, I was on some of that Nike commercial, I would put money on Lubezki still choosing film if given the choice . . .


Fun thing here is: I don't mind. :)

I am not into the rental business as such, so I don't really care too much.
BUT I cannot really see Panavision making any money out of this.
That's kind of funny. To me ;)

And I'd like to do an A/B with Genesis. That opportunity actually came closer.
  • 0

#14 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 21 December 2008 - 07:46 PM

BUT I cannot really see Panavision making any money out of this.

Are you sure they aren't?
It's perfectly normal business practice to give an outrageous discount on the camera package just to get a foot in the door on the lighting and grip for example.
Also it gets their RED(s) out there and talked about, which is a luxury denied to your average owner/operator.
Anyway it's never about making money, it's more about being #1 and trying harder (or being seen to at any rate:-)

Edited by Keith Walters, 21 December 2008 - 07:48 PM.

  • 0

#15 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 21 December 2008 - 07:53 PM

Hang on a minute, have I misunderstood this?
What exactly were PV undercutting you with:
A RED package, or a Genesis Package?
  • 0

#16 Emanuel A Guedes

Emanuel A Guedes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 528 posts
  • Producer

Posted 21 December 2008 - 08:36 PM

THIS IS A FALICY!!

What are you referring to? Fallacy?

http://www.google.co...&...acy&spell=1

I remember how everyone gawked when Steven Spielberg supposedly bought a HVX200 as if that meant the entire film industry was going to follow suit.

??

Where did you read that? Maybe you're referring the same forum mastered by someone who I heard (and read) you don't like at all and has been attacked here as often as possible. One of the guys who has made RED.

I have been there from day one, I've never read anything similar. I didn't buy the HVX (pas de tout!) but I am buying any camera provided by RED. Moreover, I am a proud RED supporter and customer, not fan of anyone other than my friends.
  • 0

#17 Jim Exton

Jim Exton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 December 2008 - 02:11 AM

What are you referring to? Fallacy?

http://www.google.co...&...acy&spell=1


??

Where did you read that? Maybe you're referring the same forum mastered by someone who I heard (and read) you don't like at all and has been attacked here as often as possible. One of the guys who has made RED.

I have been there from day one, I've never read anything similar. I didn't buy the HVX (pas de tout!) but I am buying any camera provided by RED. Moreover, I am a proud RED supporter and customer, not fan of anyone other than my friends.


It was on dvxuser, a big deal was made that part of Munich was shot with the camera. I think it was just a couple shots. And I think somebody did say that Spielberg bought one.
  • 0

#18 DJ Joofa

DJ Joofa
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:04 AM

after testing the Red camera, Lubezki and Malick decided to shoot the bulk of this movie in super 35.


Though, never have seen a Red camera before, after seeing some online footage and reviewing technical specifications, DJ Joofa came to the conclusion that though Red One camera has some obvious flaws, it appears to be a good camera.

(It is a widely held viewpoint that DJ Joofa sincerely believes that "appeal to authority" in the quoted comment above is unwarranted, since, though Lubezki and Malick are well-established names, their patronage of super 35 reflects a personal taste. While it may be possible that the viewpoint Lubezki/Malick hold might have resonance with a large segment of the motion picture industry, that does not elucidate the fact that the Red camera appears to generate acceptable quality of cinematic images.)
  • 0

#19 Gunleik Groven

Gunleik Groven
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 22 December 2008 - 04:14 AM

Are you sure they aren't?
It's perfectly normal business practice to give an outrageous discount on the camera package just to get a foot in the door on the lighting and grip for example.
Also it gets their RED(s) out there and talked about, which is a luxury denied to your average owner/operator.
Anyway it's never about making money, it's more about being #1 and trying harder (or being seen to at any rate:-)



Businesses have to make money. Eventually :)

But they don't get lights and grip, as just the transport would make it more expensive than renting locally.

The package is lower priced than the state subsided glass-only here :)

Whih is good for the production BTW, and a production that I wish all the best!
  • 0

#20 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2219 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 22 December 2008 - 06:08 AM

Businesses have to make money. Eventually :)

But they don't get lights and grip, as just the transport would make it more expensive than renting locally.

The package is lower priced than the state subsided glass-only here :)

Whih is good for the production BTW, and a production that I wish all the best!

But, WHAT were PV offering? Genesis or RED?
If it's Genesis, don't forget that also has the advantage of the well-established HDCAM workflow. Like it or not, that is important to some people.
  • 0


Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Visual Products

FJS International, LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

The Slider

CineLab

Ritter Battery

Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Opal

CineTape

Metropolis Post

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Visual Products

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

rebotnix Technologies

Tai Audio

Glidecam

CineLab

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Wooden Camera