Jump to content


Photo

Before you buy... good write up on real price and issues.


  • Please log in to reply
60 replies to this topic

#41 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2024 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 02:54 AM

There will always be a few people who cant handle Epic, it's a huge step forward from a DSLR.

A few people? If you're talking about all the wannabe Spielbergs, that pretty much applies to any professional Digital Cinema camera. Even an F900 is a huge step forward for the average DVX -ophile... :rolleyes:
Not that seems to stop a lot of them. At least if it's their own camera they can't come in Monday morning screaming at the poor bastards at the rental company.... B)
  • 0

#42 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2024 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:13 AM

Big posts behind a little mouse.


Typical. You know you'll never be able to compete with me on a technical level, so you resort to making snide comments about the size of my accessories. I defy you to find a bigger mouse than this one (that will run on a Mac at any rate).

Posted Image

For your information, they don't use mice on CSI Miami, and they can turn an 8-pixel surveillance camera image of a license plate from a worn VHS tape into a full-HD image that clearly shows the registration number and the state, and, if the light is right, gives a workable print of the perp.


Keith's comments mean nothing to me.

And that's why it's so amazing that you can still find the time to come over here and respond to them. :)

(Sorry, I think I accidentally pushed another of the "special" buttons on the mouse...)
  • 0

#43 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:17 AM

Keith... Stephen's posts have credibility because he owns an EPIC. You don't. You have been disruptive ever since you pretended to be James Mathers. You forced me to get security protection at IBC 2007. Tim Tyler verified that you were, in fact, James Mathers. You cost me money for extra security at that show. Bad move.

Stephen has an EPIC. He is credible. You aren't.

Jim
  • 0

#44 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2024 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:23 AM

∞↨ↄ∆ἑἠἛὣῼ‰
  • 0

#45 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 December 2011 - 03:59 AM

Keith... no matter what you post I have proof that you posted as James Mathers. For those that want to look back at what that means... good luck to you.

RED has tried to do something important to the industry. I have to ask what you have done. ???

Jim
  • 0

#46 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2024 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:41 AM

???? If you can produce credible proof that I (or anybody) ever posted here as "James Mathers", I'll retract everything I've ever said about Red, in Pink Whipped Cream on a 1 Acre Black Forest Sponge Cake at a location of your choice. (You to supply the cake, cream, scaffolding and airfare). :rolleyes:
  • 0

#47 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 9537 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2011 - 06:39 AM

Children!

Posted Image

  • 0

#48 Jim Jannard

Jim Jannard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 361 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:15 AM

Typo. James Murdoch. And Tim Tyler is proof.

Jim
  • 0

#49 Keith Walters

Keith Walters
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2024 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 December 2011 - 04:22 PM

Children!

Posted Image

Sorry, what's the significance of this?
Are you suggesting I'm bagging RED's products?
  • 0

#50 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 9537 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 December 2011 - 07:00 PM

http://en.wiktionary...andbags_at_dawn
  • 0

#51 Mei Lewis

Mei Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 318 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 18 December 2011 - 08:51 PM

There will always be a few people who cant handle Epic, it's a huge step forward from a DSLR. As I usually shoot 35mm, I find the move fairly easy. I continue to be blown away by the images & how much info is there.


I don't understand, in what way is an epic more difficult to shoot than a DSLR? How does shooting film help with an Epic any more than shooting DSLR would?
  • 0

#52 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1273 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 18 December 2011 - 11:00 PM

I don't understand, in what way is an epic more difficult to shoot than a DSLR? How does shooting film help with an Epic any more than shooting DSLR would?



I think it would be easier, I find film much easier to shoot than a dslr because you don't have to worry about the 2-stop dynamic range and instantly clipped highlites and the rolling shutter and all of that noise.

However with Epic (like 35mm) you probably want a set of S4's and a focus puller instead of a canon still lens with an electronic focus ring and no way to achieve good focus..

-Rob-
  • 0

#53 Andrew Walker

Andrew Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Burbank, CA

Posted 19 December 2011 - 10:47 PM

You should call up all those top-tier DP's that are shooting "jokes" and show them the light man!


If I had their numbers I would.
  • 0

#54 Andrew Walker

Andrew Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Burbank, CA

Posted 19 December 2011 - 10:56 PM

Yeah, you can call me names, jump up and down waving your Red Banner, trot out the same tired old list of box office duds from has-been producers, or TV series that lasted one season, if that, or endless sh!t music videos of talentless cookie-cutter wannabes and so on and so on, but reality will not budge.


So the show has to be a hit for the camera to be worth anything right. That is some very interesting logic.
  • 0

#55 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 20 December 2011 - 11:36 PM

So the show has to be a hit for the camera to be worth anything right. That is some very interesting logic.


Andrew, it's not that hard to get the phone numbers of big-name DPs. At the same time, having their telephone numbers and having them actually carry on a conversation and take you seriously are two completely separate issues.
  • 0

#56 Andrew Walker

Andrew Walker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 34 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Burbank, CA

Posted 24 December 2011 - 04:03 PM

Andrew, it's not that hard to get the phone numbers of big-name DPs. At the same time, having their telephone numbers and having them actually carry on a conversation and take you seriously are two completely separate issues.


Very true. Sometimes people are just unwilling to listen.
  • 0

#57 Hal Smith

Hal Smith
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2280 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • OKC area

Posted 24 December 2011 - 08:39 PM

"Like Crazy" got distributed because it was a good story and the filmmaker worked within the limitations of the 7D.

Here's a quote on IMDB from someone who saw it at Sundance:

"This film was beautiful. I saw it at the Sundance Film Festival and fell in love with it Like Crazy. Everything from the acting, to the cinematography, to the story line was amazing. And to think it was shot on the Canon 7D is incredible. I saw 14 films at Sundance and this was my favorite film in the festival. During the Q&A after the film the director made it clear that this film is about the true story of his own relationship with a girl. I would recommend this film to people who have experienced a long distant relationship and to teenage/young adult audiences. This film is the Winner of the U.S. Dramatic Competition Grand Jury Prize at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. I think it deserved this prize. This film made me feel all sorts of different emotions. This film really is a beautiful story and I am excited to see it coming out in theaters."

You can shoot a great movie with a 7D and produce seven reels of crap with the latest expensive toy. In the final case, it's about the FILM, not about the CAMERA.
  • 0

#58 bill simone

bill simone

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • Other

Posted 24 December 2011 - 10:04 PM

I read this forum almost everyday.
Have learned a lot, especially some of the great posts of detailed production diaries by people like David Mullen.
I almost never post myself cause it often seems that when an opinion is given on a thread like this one, it gets flamed.

I've made my living in photography for almost thirty years now.
Advertising photography to be specific.
Started with large format 8x10 and 4x5 transparency stuff.
Thats an arena where you really learn your way around lighting, exposure and dynamic range.
Spent a lot of time looking through the camera before shooting a sheet of very expensive film.

I've owned all sorts of cameras.
Sinars, cambos, deardorffs, hassys, canons, nikons etc.
Made the move to digital over 10 years ago. Never looked back.
And now I have used and own all sorts of digital equipment.
Leaf, phase one, canon, nikon, blah blah.

I also own a RED MX and most recently rec'd my Epic.
I'll tell you what, these are awesome cameras.
I've made some gorgeous images and lots of money with them already.
And I have a long list of happy clients.
And they have been quite rock solid, delivering consistent performance day in and day out.

I find it rather funny, all the continual RED bashing that goes on by some forum members (and you know who you are).
Seems to me you are simply fluffing yourself to satisfy some personal need.
Perhaps you don't like the company or the man, but the product has in my opinion delivered from day one of my ownership.


But heck, don't take my word for it, ask David. He's done some beautiful work with these machines.

Philip who?

Give me a lightbulb, bedsheet and cellphone camera, and I'll make a gorgeous picture cause after all, in the end its
about the person using the camera, not the camera.

So, keep on bashing, I'll just go on back to my studio and keep shooting.

Bill
  • 0

#59 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 25 December 2011 - 03:45 PM

I've owned all sorts of cameras.
Sinars, cambos, deardorffs, hassys, canons, nikons etc.
Made the move to digital over 10 years ago. Never looked back.
[Emphasis added]


This one phrase makes me really freakin' angry. Who are you, Jesus?


Shoot what you want. But just as I get flack for "dust and grain" in my imagery (most of the time it's not noticed, but anyone I *tell* I shoot film all of a sudden sees it everywhere, even where it isn't, be prepared to get critiqued for blown highlights, horrible colors, and horrible flesh-tones.

Difference is, with digital, the problems are really there. With film the only problem, really, is cost. People want everything for free.



So keep on laughing it up, bragging to your friends about how you haven't had to pay for film since 1999, and ignore the cost of equipment depreciation and the damage you've done to the environment filling up landfills with heavy metals and scrap cameras.

This is another big irk of mine "all the toxic chemical film I work with." The water that goes down the drain from my lab is probably clean enough to drink. They have to scrub EVERYTHING out of it.




If you shot 8x10" film and switched to digital, honestly, quality wise, you must be full of it. If you can't see what you lost, or worse, don't care what the customer is losing because you make more money now, you are part of the problem with this industry: Bringing down standards [and pay along with it as a result.]

The quality that the high-end guys still provide is getting harder and harder to budget for because of back-stabbers like you. The low-ballers, the stay-at-home dads whose wives pay all the utility bills.



Funny thing is, Bill, I'm too lazy to capitalize my own name, Simone, people like you brag about all the money you're making because you don't pay for labor and you don't have the time or math skills to calculate your depreciation, equipment costs, and the 20 hour days you put in d*cking around with files that a lab would've done for 1/10 the cost if you were to pay yourself for your hours.


I have yet to see one cost study that accurately priced out all the hidden expenses of digital imagery. Of course, the great thing with digital, you can shoot it over to the third world where 10ยข an hour is acceptable for the employees as well as the sucker owner. Here in the United States though, if you want to pay a skilled retoucher an hourly rate, guess what, digital is probably going to be more expensive.



So have fun in the future, Bill; I make a (barely) living out of this too, but I didn't compromise my quality and blindly follow the magazine ads and the hype and the marketing to do it. I shoot with equipment older than I am, and guess what, it still takes the best quality pictures available today in late 2011.

As for shooting with 100 different cameras, my experience is that people that shoot more than say one or two, don't make squat doing this. They spend all the money they should be paying on labor and utilities on toys.


Where are you going to shoot WITH your $80,000 camera? Your wife's basement? I have an office, a studio, and a place to store machinery with the money I could have wasted on three-times-a-decade camera upgrades.
  • 0

#60 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 25 December 2011 - 03:58 PM

Give me a lightbulb, bedsheet and cellphone camera, and I'll make a gorgeous picture cause after all, in the end its
about the person using the camera, not the camera.



This goes above and beyond. You realize that a camera is marginally worse than 8mm right, like regular 8, not super.



Do you have an iPhone 4 that you use with "clients?" Does Siri or whatever her name is call out T-stops and focal distances for you too? I mean, knock of the hyperbole if you want to be taken seriously. You can't expect with the grandiose claims, any serious film or digital shooter to take this seriously, can you?



& @Andrew: I don't want you to think I'm bragging about having phone numbers. If/when you join a lot of the guilds/unions, you get a directory. You can call anyone you want in it (although not all people listed have phone numbers personally, some have agents).

Anyway, my point is, just because you have contact with big-name people doesn't mean you get to work with them. There isn't all the corruption cronyism that people outisde of the establishment talk about, it's simple matter of work relationships built over decades.

Would you rather hire the operator, motion picture camera you used on your last 20 features or some kid who just bought a RED?



One thing Bills says is right: It's not the equipment (unless it's an iPhone4 wind up 8mm/16mm or another marginal camera that simply can't cut it for practical budgeted motion picture work), it's the skill of the operator.

And certainly who you know is as big or bigger a part of it as what you know.






It's been said before and it'll probably be said 100,000 times after, but no one on here wants to listen: WIth very few exceptions, it's cheaper to RENT than OWN. DO NOT BUY CAMERAS BECAUSE 99x out of 100 THEY WILL NOT PAY FOR THEMSELVES, INSTEAD YOU'LL LOSE YOUR SHIRT.


I say this in all bold because it is amazing to me how many equimpent purchases I've seen that have bankrupted businesses.


The equipment I own I bought used, and it paid for itself easily, but it certainly can't do everything. The specialized equipment I need shooting I rent, and that's not a problem. Only if you're some sort of journalist, or doc. filmmaker do you need to own an outfit.

Really, anyone that is trying to sell you business, or says you need to own equipment is basically trying to make themselves rich by potentially ruining you. All the big promises you see, why are they keyed to feelings instead of stats, facts?



It's like owning a Corvette. Does the salesman tell you all the reasons why you NEED to have one instead of a Chevy Cavalier or does he play to your feelings of owning a status symbol?

I guarantee you the latter vehicle will get you from point A to point B just as quickly (unless on a racetrack) as the former.




So, a Merry Christmas to aspiring filmmakers, and if you still want to buy equipment even after my warning "Let the Buyer Beware!"
  • 0


Zylight

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Glidecam

Lemo Connectors

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

System Associates

Cinelicious

Pro 8mm

Robert Starling

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

rebotnix Technologies

Ritter Battery

K5600 Lighting

Visual Products

NIBL

The Slider

Cinelicious

System Associates

CineTape

Pro 8mm

Rig Wheels Passport

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

Lemo Connectors

Abel Cine

Robert Starling

Glidecam

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Cadrage Directors Viewfinder

NIBL

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

Zylight

K5600 Lighting