RED Cam?

RED is a pro cam w/ higher bit rate, higher resolution and is built solid for cinema production. 5D is a solid DSLR that ALSO does great video, not as easy to set and adjust for video, less robust design than the RED is what I have learned



OHHH and cost, the RED is not cheap..many more times expensive



.
 
It's vastly superior. It has much more dynamic range, the output is much less compressed, if the post is done right it's very hard to tell Red footage from 35mm film.

It also costs rough 10X as much. You can buy a 5D for what it costs to rent a Red for 4 days.
 
I just found out RED's are available factory direct for $25k. You can shoot an honest to god movie on one of these things, I think it's worth it. Rent w/package for 500 a day, fantastic. That's the equivalent of 10 pizzas+delivery tip out here in California.

5ds are cool, but if you watch a whole bunch of web videos of them, you never really like the look of any one film that much. I saw one exception 1 time by a guy with a stabilizer and a speedboat on a miami night.
 
Reds are great, if you have the budget I say go for it. $500 a day is a BASIC package on a Red. 2 maybe 3 lenses, batteries, etc... You'll spend a bit more that that to get a really usable package for a feature. So on a feature (14 day Roger Corman shooting schedule) you'll spend $7000 minimum on the camera rental. On a 100K feature that's very reasonable. On a 30K feature it's a budget buster.

I've seen 5D footage that the casual viewer would never know was not film. It has WAY more to do with who is behind the camera (and the time and money spent on proper post production color grading) than the camera itself.
 
The thing is if you're gonna make a 100k movie you're probably gonna make more. So why spend 7k on renting when for 25k you can buy it and have it for you next 5films. I'm just saying but then again right now I've got 20quid and ain't gonna be buying anything.
 
The thing is if you're gonna make a 100k movie you're probably gonna make more. So why spend 7k on renting when for 25k you can buy it and have it for you next 5films. I'm just saying but then again right now I've got 20quid and ain't gonna be buying anything.

The reason you rent for film production is because technology advances so fast that for features you don't get your money out of it.

As a director being involved in the whole process from concept to pre production and planning to production to post to marketing and distribution, shooting 5 features will take 7-10 years. In 7 Years, you may be able to buy the red for less than $1000, or current technology demands that you shoot in 12k resolution (or holograms for that matter) that older tech can't do. Also, hopefully if you've made it to your 5th feature, hopefully you're working with a dramatically bigger budget and better technology.

Buying gear is worth it when you're a beginner, buying a basic-ish less expensive camera (like a DSLR, that 10 rental days can buy it) and are shooting every weekend to learn our craft. Another situation where buying makes more sense is if you're constantly hiring yourself out with gear for productions as a technical job (DP, camera op, audio mixer, boom op etc).

When it comes to lenses, if you want the best you have to rent. Panavision doesn't sell.

Sorry, back on topic. Currently the Red One is a fantastic camera. To get the next step up you're looking at $150,000 video camera or film. 4k resolution currently offers a lot of flexibility in post. If you go the Red route, be sure to think through your workflow. You'll need a ludicrous amount of hard drive space in post, plus an edit system that can handle it.
 
The reason you rent for film production is because technology advances so fast that for features you don't get your money out of it.
.

I agree with everything you said except this. Well, I even agree with this in that I'm sure that is why people think it's better to rent.

A camera like the RED has a strong intrinsic value. People that knew what they were doing spent lifetimes making films without ever having a camera this good. Tech is advancing quickly, but that doesn't mean that something that absolutely gets the job done can't be used for 10 or 20 films. You could easily shoot something the scope and quality of the entire West Wing series, on this one camera. Retrospectively that was considered one of the greatest works of television history.

I am as allured by gadgetry as the next guy, but I don't think next year a camera with higher light sensitivity will come out (already happened) and suddenly I'm done for.
 
The other factor is the way the film is budgeted. Are your investors going to want to buy you a Red.. um... no. They are going to want to rent one, or maybe buy it with the intention sell it as soon as the shoot is finished. Those are the much more typical ways it's done.

"hey guys, spend 30K buying me a camera that I get to keep (money right out of your profits) instead of spending 7K to rent one!'

That plan will go over like a lead balloon.
 
Last edited:
gotta be a better way

The other factor is the way the film is budgeted. Are your investors going to want to buy you a Red.. um... no. They are going to want to rent one, or maybe buy it with the intention sell it as soon as the shoot is finished. Those are the much more typical ways it's done.

"hey guys, spend 30K buying me a camera that I get to keep (money right out of your profits) instead of spending 7K to rent one!'

That plan will go over like a lead balloon.

My big problem with renting is that after it's over, you are back to square one, and have to come up with 7 grand again. Let's counterbalance that against a 5 year loan at 10% interest. Now you pay about 450 a month for your red camera. Since supplies are limited and rental is 500 a day, you can very likely rent out your camera at least an average of 1 day a month.

Here's what I've done. I called a local rental store and said "do you rent red cameras" NO. "would you like to?" YES. Ok camera store, why dont we strike up an agreement where you can call me when you need it, and I'll rent it to your store for 300 a day, and you can charge 500. OK, tell us when you have the camera.

To my boss "hey, lets quit spending 2k at the rental store for each contract, buy the equipment, and pay ourselves those rental fees instead" Boss: I like it, let's do it.

My final thought, quit budgeting for A film, and start budgeting for filming.

I see myself paying 0 dollars a month after counterbalance income, and paying off the camera in 2 years. That is cheaper and better than rental in every way.
 
Last edited:
It really just depends on the situation.

I have finally come to the point where I am buying some gear (my 5DMK2 should be here tomorrow), but on my first two films I rented everything, from the camera, to the lights, to the c-stands, to the apple boxes. I had 5K to make a movie, I couldn't buy gear AND make the movie for 5K, so I spent $1500 renting gear (which is less than the camera would have cost) and made the film. If you're starting a production company, or intend to crank out a lot of work (as I now plan to do) then owning is better.
 
It really just depends on the situation.

I have finally come to the point where I am buying some gear (my 5DMK2 should be here tomorrow), but on my first two films I rented everything, from the camera, to the lights, to the c-stands, to the apple boxes. I had 5K to make a movie, I couldn't buy gear AND make the movie for 5K, so I spent $1500 renting gear (which is less than the camera would have cost) and made the film. If you're starting a production company, or intend to crank out a lot of work (as I now plan to do) then owning is better.

I agree with this. I probably didn't mention that I shoot as a full time job, so that's probably why I see owning as better. It's all about your situation. Sounds like you and I started out about the same, I admire your efforts to produce good films on a budget. Anywhere I can take a look at your work?
 
No doubt. I have a full time job that supports my movie making dream.

This is my 2010 short
http://www.vimeo.com/17683897 Password: shannon
Shot on an HVX200A

I have a very short (8 minute) film in pre-production to shoot in May, and a Feature I hope to do in 2012. Hopefully the feature will be the first time I might actually break even (or god forbid make money) on a film.
 
My big problem with renting is that after it's over, you are back to square one, and have to come up with 7 grand again. Let's counterbalance that against a 5 year loan at 10% interest. Now you pay about 450 a month for your red camera. Since supplies are limited and rental is 500 a day, you can very likely rent out your camera at least an average of 1 day a month.

Here's what I've done. I called a local rental store and said "do you rent red cameras" NO. "would you like to?" YES. Ok camera store, why dont we strike up an agreement where you can call me when you need it, and I'll rent it to your store for 300 a day, and you can charge 500. OK, tell us when you have the camera.

To my boss "hey, lets quit spending 2k at the rental store for each contract, buy the equipment, and pay ourselves those rental fees instead" Boss: I like it, let's do it.

My final thought, quit budgeting for A film, and start budgeting for filming.

I see myself paying 0 dollars a month after counterbalance income, and paying off the camera in 2 years. That is cheaper and better than rental in every way.

Hey -- would you be interested in renting that RED out to other folks? I mean, not through one of those rental companies.

EDIT: Sorry, missed your other rental post! Too cool!
 
Last edited:
I probably didn't mention that I shoot as a full time job, so that's probably why I see owning as better. It's all about your situation.

I agree! I make several projects, every year. Renting would have killed me. However, I have paid off in full, my HVX200 and DVX100 through rentals to other people and also had the benefit of writing them off as business expense. Of course, that was a core group of people that I trusted, including Barry Green, when he lived in Vegas. They also had the cams, but always needed a B or C cam for concerts, events, promos, etc.

As far as RED goes, the resolution is great. While I would like it for greenscreen work, I can't justify it for my movies and tutorial videos, which are all direct to video releases. As someone said, you need an editing system that can move that amount of resolution. Right now, my HD is done in real-time, with a Matrox Axio card. I really like that speed and being able to simultaneously watch it full rez on an HD TV, alongside the computer.
 
technical note

You know, CS5 allows you to edit with proxy footage. Meaning you can create the res and bitrate your decks can handle in real time, make your edits, then swap in the real footage for non real time processing.
 
You know, CS5 allows you to edit with proxy footage. Meaning you can create the res and bitrate your decks can handle in real time, make your edits, then swap in the real footage for non real time processing.

Most decent NLEs will… but I'd still have to store the 4K files, use the full-resolution for VFX and grade in 4K. I'm sure loads of us would love to work with RED on our own projects (I have done once, as a camera trainee) but for the time being I think it's too cost-prohibitive for a lot of indies; even if the camera package was completely free.
 
Back
Top