Should you buy a Red One?
Saturday, May 12, 2007 at 12:19PM 
It's no secret that the Red One has caused quite a stir, and for good reason. The price point, design philosophy, and Howard Hughes-ian nature of the endeavor are thrilling and a welcome change in the staid world of camera manufacturers. I'm a big fan.
And money has now been placed where previously did mouths only tread. We saw working cameras at NAB, and some truly amazing footage shot in real-world conditions. So the Red One is real, and you could probably buy one if you wanted to. Do you want to?
I have a reservation for a Red One camera. Or rather, The Orphanage does. There's no way I'd be putting my own $17,500 into a camera body, no matter how badass it is. But for The Orphanage, it almost makes sense. With the body, a Nikon f-mount front plate, and lenses we already have, we can use it for element shoots and spec projects. Would we do enough of that in a year or three to make it cost-effective to buy rather than rent? Maybe. Who knows, when our reservation comes up, we may not even buy the thing.
Sometimes I get reminded why I don't post more on public forums. One such occasion came when I dared to gently point out on DVXuser.com (a forum about accessible filmmaking, one of my favorite subjects) that a satisfactory filmmaking kit centered around the Red One would cost a great deal more that 20-or-so grand. I actually received personal messaged from people who were incensed that I would dare try to chip at their dream, accusing me of propagating false numbers.
There are those out there who are throwing rocks at Red because they feel threatened by it, or because they like the status quo of cameras made by and for the elite. So I have to be careful in my writing lest I be mistaken for one of those people. In fact I'm the biggest fan of accessibility there is. I dare say I wrote the book on it. I'm just concerned that some Red reservation holders are getting themselves into the same situation I did when I was about eight years old, and I saved my allowance for weeks to buy an AT-AT toy. I saved and saved and I even factored in sales tax, so that when I got to the store I had exactly enough change in my jar to buy the Imperial Walker.
But not the batteries.
Luckily my Mom was there to bail me out. But she won't be there for me when I realize that my razor-sharp Nikon 50mm prime (which mounts to the $500 Red f-mount plate) breathes like crazy when I try to rack focus with it (Red 18-50 f2.8 zoom: $6,500), or that I really quite need a follow-focus regardless of which lens I use (cheapest follow focus I've found: $645, rails to mount it to: $1,250), or that a tripod that can hold a fully kitted-out Red One costs a couple grand at the very least, or that I might want some way of seeing what my camera is shooting (Red EVF: $2,950) or some way of recording it (Red Drive 320GB: $900). Mom?
Could you strip down your expectations and start making pictures with a Red One for about $20,000? Absolutely. But should you? Will you make a better movie with this minimalist Red setup (one lens, no tripod, 720p LCD monitor) than you would with an HV20, an M2 adapter, that same Nikon lens, and $17,000 left over for things like extra lenses, DV tapes, and coffee for the crew? Which of these scenarios creates a better experience for the audience? Which puts you, the filmmaker, in a better place to succeed?
Although it may sound like those questions are purely rhetorical, they are not. As you will recall, I have a reservation and I must decide what to do with it. These are real, active questions for me, and, I imagine, for many other people.
So in a world full of entirely justified optimism and excitement about the Red One, I hope you all will indulge my exploration of the elephant in the room. No matter how bitchin' the Red One may be, it may not be the best camera for you. Or me.
I'm going to finish with a lengthy quote from Carlos Acosta, a DIT from LA who posted this eloquent reply to a conversation on the CML about the relative merits of buying any camera.
...Let me throw some great reasons to NOT own production hardware. They will be especially true if you are a post/consultant. I am amazed how many producers, editors, animators, etc have committed to buying a camera.This list could go on and on....my only hope is that those who buy production cameras and related gear understand the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP. It's not as simple as adding up the hardware. If you buy equipment for the purpose of making money, it's a business. If your current business is not directly related to renting cameras you will have to start a new business which will likely compromise your old business. Now, your new camera business has to have insurance, clients [the bigger ones like free lunches], an office, subrentals, repairs, new gadgets, LOTS of time on the phone explaining the new technologies to a clueless producer hoping for a cheap camera.
- Production gear gets beat up and blamed for every problem that comes afterwards.
- No matter how cheap you think it is, it's expensive.
- You will never have the right lenses
- You will never have the right tripod.
- You will never be cheap enough.
- It will break in the middle of a shoot and you become public enemy #1.
- You will find yourself changing your career so that you can keep your fancy camera busy even when it is the wrong camera for the job.
All of a sudden....$17,500 seems scary to me. When it's all said and done, it's more like $90,000 plus continuing operating expenses and I still have an experimental system that has been branded as the CHEAP alternative. It's still a camera, the business has not changed at all. For the fifteen years I've been in this business, I have seen countless products that promise the world and actually deliver. Did the world change? No, it just got more pixels, more color, more speed, or more sex appeal.
I purchased a DVW-700 in 1997. It was 1035i and the hottest and most exciting development for digital acquisition at the time. It was quickly changed to the HDW-700a which did 1080i. It was a BetaSP/DigiBeta world at the time and no one knew what to do with this camera that required huge changes to take full advantage of. I had the newest toy on the block and was the poorest guy around for it.
The thread about compression is a great example of being realistic in a business that is full of crazy expectations. Compression is a reality for a multitude of reasons, but it comes down to making money. Buying a camera and what camera to buy requires a glimpse of reality as well.
If, on the other hand, you want an awesome toy and have lots of excess cash.....
Carlos Acosta,
DIT/Engineer/Reality Checker
LA
More to come on this, of that you can be sure.
Red One camera body: $17,500. Red One as pictured above, $33,870 (my best guess based on prices at the Red Store)
Reader Comments (27)
Excellent post. It is strange how discussing this camera is fraught with such peril, while the shear ambition and scope of this project should be open for discussion and thought-out criticism. Sometimes it seems the fan base divides the line for those for and those against. It is not that simple, as you point out, the greatest camera, may not be great for anyone. I, like you, would love to have access to the camera, through the office, but personal ownership has scary credit card implications. I got into this business with the flawed belief that technology will make me a better filmmaker, fortunately for me creating the technology is just as fun. I have mostly avoided RED discussion on my own blog, to prevent too much us versus them thoughts. Still hoping for RED success so we can sell a bunch of software for those who use it.
David Newman
CTO, CineForm
P.S. Just finshed, and very much enjoyed your book.
Great post Stu. I too have been reluctant to analyse the reality of owning this camera for fear of the often vitriolic responses. You laid it out very fairly and effectively.
Yeah I agree Stu, that is a great post. I am buying the camera, but thought long and hard about it and still reserve the right to walk away. Do people really want to get into the camera business? Do I? What I want is better access to a hi-res capture device for the music videos and short films I make as director. Would I not get that from someone else owning it comfortably and putting it out on hire at a reasonable rate?
Personally my solution is to give the camera up the minute I receive it (while still owning it) to be shared with a rental house that has far better expertise than I at hiring and looking after cameras. Hopefully in a years time, that camera will have paid itself off enough for me to then have the access that I would like.
I guarantee you though, there is no way I would undetake this otherwise. It's still a lot of money to buy what is a working tool. What would be the point of having a pet camera sitting on the shelf and not working very often?
I'm 2/3rds of the way through your book and also enjoying it. Nice work.
dale
dp/director
www.dalemccready.com
My advice - go ahead and buy a camera, any camera. But buy it FOR YOURSELF. For your personal, non-professional work. Which, don't get me wrong, is important work, maybe the most important. But, start out with the assumption that YOU'LL NEVER MAKE A DIME WITH IT. Directly, at least.
That's why I bought an XL-H1 a year ago. On a professional level, shooting visual effects plates and elements plus the odd commercial here and there, I should have bought a 435 Xtreme. But what am I going to do to make it useful? Buy a set of primes, then zooms, a dolly, a jib, a camera truck, a full lighting package? That's beyond absurd. If it's a paid job, I can rent.
As it is, the XL-H1, while fine for freebie work on off-indie drama projects, is serious overkill for my personal stuff (more pictorialist and abstract), what with the accessory box (AB batteries, matte box and follow focus, OBM, lots of 4x4's), largish tripod, 17" field monitor, etc. Usually now I'm going out with an HV20 and a lightweight tripod slung over my shoulder, riding my old Schwinn down the beach. That's what I call fun.
To me, the big RED ONE is currently the ultimate dilettante/amateur camera, and that JJ is the ultimate dilettante/amateur. I'm not saying that to be nasty (remember that "amateur" means someone who does what they love), and I'm sure that the next day after Oakley and Red go into Chapter 7, he'll be busy figuring out a way to make a living shooting funny cars and X-games. But until then, shooting for him is just a billionaire's hobby.
And now he wants to make it your hobby, too. That's cool, and being a serious camera junkie, there's a good chance I might buy one to goof around with. But I'm also betting I won't need a reservation to do so. I'm thinking that all I have to do is wait, and watch eBay, as someone's dreams don't come true, and they get an expensive lesson in how hard it is to make a living as a shooter.
I'll get myself a peach of a camera, barely used, for, what do you think? Maybe twelve-five "Buy It Now" if there are a lot of them?
Tim Sassoon
SFD vfx & creative post
Santa Monica, CA
Really great post Stu. I agree, the HV20 is the best candidate for a revolution in filmmaking, not RED.
Yeah, it's a cool camera and I considered buying one, until the price came out. I know from every camera I own that you need to at least multiply a camera price by 3 to get our initial cost of ownership.
That's at least true with RED. Sure, it will rock the world of cameras that currently cost $20-$100+k, but that's a tiny part of the camera world.
For indies and rebels (many who like me are still shooting the DVXs or low-cost 1/3" HD), we are looking at HV20s or perhaps Sony $8,000 announced XDCAM EX - 1/2" sensor at that price with lens included. That's the most I would pay for any personal camera and I would really prefer it was around $5000.
The question of having or not having a particular camera cannot be answered with a general list of rationalizations that apply to almost no one. There is a huge variety of reasons and motives to own a RED ONE.
I am a RED reservation holder too and when my camera arrives, my bank account will reach a scary low figure. Will such a sacrifice make me better at my work? No, but it will make my work look better. If visual quality matters to you as much as it matters to me then this camera is good for you even if the numbers tell you it's not.
An HV20 with an M2 adapter and some NIKON lenses are good enough to shoot something interesting and make it look good but a RED camera will make it look better and it's how much you value this improvement that should make you decide if the purchase of this camera is good for you or not.
I shot a TV commercial with a JVC HD-100 camera and a LETUS HD-100 DOF adapter with 2 NIKON lenses. you can find the video in the bottom of this page:
http://pilalitos.blogspot.com/2007/03/letus-hd100-and-red-radio-tvc.html
Although i am pleased with the overall result i always wished i had a better aquisition set-up and better visual quality. The HD-100 is not a bad camera but when you take all these shortcuts to try and emulate the familiar look of film there are some trade offs that you have to live with. Personally, i am bored and tired of doing all that because i am doing it for years and i just want a camera that will make me focus on my real work as a director and blame only myself if i do something that i don't like.
RED might not be a camera for everyone but for some people, including me, it means a lot. More than $20K or $30K more in my bank account.
You are absolutely right Stu- many people's dreams are going to come crashing down around them when the make two major discoveries:
1) The ancillary items for the camera will cost more than the camera itself unless you are willing to compromise and work around some serious limitations.
2) The best camera on the planet can't create great content where the talent in front of and behind the camera falls short... and great is in short supply - with no sign of any relief on the horizon.
If you decide to get a refund on your Red deposit, you may want to keep an eye on eBay and see if you can pick up a lightly used Red with a few accessories for half price.
In my case, creating cinema and series is my plan 'A' in life and there really is no plan 'B'... unless you count "bitter hermit toiling over novels" as a fallback plan.
I want what I create to be as close as possible to what I see in my minds eye and the Red camera is a way to get a great leap closer without the expense of the 35mm that I can't afford. If I can manage to create content that others find worth while and it pays enough for me to create bigger and better shows... that is all I can ask.
The flip side to renting is that 7 yeears ago I put down almost 20 grand for a sony dsr-500 (at the time that was more money than we had made in the last year as a business) and have made close to 500 grand with it since then. Best thing about it is that it still works great and I hope to make 500 grand more with it before having to upgrade. By then I am sure the RED issue will be settled and there will have been a Blue, a Silver and a Green with Yellow spots cameras that have come along as well.
Miltos, your commercial looks great! You might be hurting your case by showing that as an example of why a cheaper alternative to Red is insufficient. It's delightfully ironic that the tagline is "need red?"
Dale, I'll be interested in hearing how your consignment rental plan works out. Seems like it could be a good way to go if you don't mind spending a lot of time away from your new toy.
I like Tim's advice—it dovetails perfectly with the DV Rebel approach. Definitely own a camera, but own a camera that you can afford for purely personal reasons. I completely agree that this is the path to camera happiness. Nicely put Tim!
it'll be easier since I'll be in a different hemisphere anyway when the camera arrives. Otherwise I'm sure that I'd be hard pressed to let it out of my site. But then hey...it's just a camera. Stories matter more to me. It just increases the chances that my stories will be better received if one of the sometime barriers to enjoyment (image quality) is removed.
Of course it will key better than the Varicam, so that should help my music vids.
I may not apply to this camera for all people but owning A camera is absolutely vital. The Red One is certainly a bit more to deal with than what I would keep in my eveyday "rebel kit". But if it is the type of camera you will be shooting with most of the time then owning it buys you a freedom and power to govern your shooting scedule that you can not get from rented equipment. You also buy yourself unlimited hands-on training and other things that can help make you a better filmmaker.
great post Stu. i agree about this , i still dont think i know everything about my HVX so why step up to the Red.
I will have access to them and be able to use it becaue of a former employer who i am still helping out.
And i just bought a nice new fish eye for my Hvx(yes for skate and snow Stu)
why wst 3000 for the century lense when i got 16by9 .45 lense for way way less and no barrel distortion when fully zoomed out. saweet.
I like in the book best part for me make a list of what you have now and what you have access to and then make your movie or fill in the blank
best advice .cause my list included alot of friends the best Rebel tool of all my friends .
So ill use their toys and mine and then we have a kick ass crew and production tool but also brain power.
Jim G
The FanBoi excitement is my only real complaint about the Red One. It skews the reality of what owning this tool really entails. You make a great post here, Stu.
From my perspective, the Red one offers one thing: A new alternative for rental. Cameras like the Viper , F900 etc. now have a serious competitor in the rental market.
In this regard, we all win. TCO is one of the aspects that so many of the FanBois choose to ignore, yet it is where the real cost of owning such a rig lies.
Is this specific to the RED? Not at all. The same costs for initial purchase, TOC and ROI apply to any significant investment for a Production / Post house. A lighting package, or an xSan or a camera - Any of the tools related to performing the day to day business for Production / Post.
The advice offered here to purchase a small cheap camera for your personal use is very sound. Beyond that, go rent what you need to make your content and your talent shine.
At the end of the day, it's just another tool. Not a religion.
See, the other thing is that all the indie filmmakers looking at Red as a brilliant new acquisition format are also thinking that this is their way to get Hollywood-style 35mm-quality images into theaters on a budget.
They won't.
99.9% (or more) of Red-shot indie films are going to be seen on DVD, or maybe TV, or Blu-Ray/HD-DVD at *best*.
Your film is not going to be seen in theaters. In case that's not clear, it should be clarified: your film is not going to be seen in theaters.
So yeah, drop a whole pantload of cash, shoot 4K, finish in 4K, and then do what with it?
Is that worth it?
I'll shoot on whatever I have. If my miniDV camera breaks, I'll pull out my VHS video camera. If someone (read: a major studio) sees my shorts and decides to invest in me and my story, they'll pay for whatever kind of camera they want me to shoot it in. Any camera can get an artistic shot. Napolean Dynamite was done this way (cheapy short got noticed, then someone else paid big to have it remade as a feature). There's a long history of cheap things leading to expensive things, as long as the story is captivating.
And no, I wouldn't REALLY pull out my VHS cam... :) That's just my exaggerrated way of saying I consider story and characters most important, followed by acting performances and getting shots that are composed very cinematically, followed then by quality special effects and music... the pixel size of the frame it captures isn't going to matter to anyone who views my movies on a computer over the internet or on a dvd they got from me. If they're bored watching it, or get distracted by bad acting or crappy fx, THEN i've really screwed up and lost them.
I'm not a technical person, though. Just give me something that records and that I can get footage into my computer with.
Great blog add-on...
Hype abounds and Jim used it as a marketing tool after he saw the Fan Boy Mentality when Panny did it with the HVX.(and he chose his site to advertise wisely)
I too think the HV20 is more an “INDIE” tool and has created more “waves” just by being a good all around camera with a few features.
The Canon successor to the Flagship may be a Bayer cmos at 2k, with a 4.4.4 jack pack for less than 10k,,,… who knows
Coupla things -
1.) Stu was nice enough not to point out that Carlos' long post was aimed at ME in particular - although in the nicest, most supportive possible way. I'm getting one to try to be entirely knowledgeable about it. Will I keep it and rent it as planned? I'm not as sure of that as when I placed my reservation last year - since then, there are at least 4 others in a 20 mile radius - so I'm not a unique as I thought.
2.) To the Anonymous poster commenting on 99% of Red-shot movies won't be seen in a theater:
a.) THAT'S OK - note that most high budget commercials are shot on film, and for good reason. Resolution is only one benefit - dynamic range, depth of field, malleability in post are other reasons besides resolution to shoot a high quality image.
b.) Hey - just remember - 99% of ALL movies shot only end up on DVD/Blu-ray/HD DVD anyway - Red will not be unique in that category. All other things being equal, I'd imagine Red would have a SLIGHTLY better chance at higher end success - if properly shot, the image will look much more cinematic than any other cost-comparable option, and if you have enough smarts and budget to use Red, perhaps your end result MAY look a little better than any other random indie project.
-mike
Salatar - I'd say the HV20 is a great play/trainer camera, but you can't seriously propose shooting anything professional on it that folks would look at that and perceive it as "cinematic" or pay $8 to see it in a movie theater....let's talk professional tools here.
The HV20 is a great little camera to learn on, but I certainly wouldn't base a production on it...
-mike
A sensible post: You can shoot the best film ever made with a $500 dollar camcorder. It's the screenplay, acting and direction that count most. A nice clear picture and sound is all you need.
It's like those "film school" or "no film school" debates. They do have value, but it ultimately comes entirely down to the individual. Some people will turn ownership of a Red into something amazing, and it won't happen for them if they have to rent. Many others will have a camera collecting dust on a shelf in their home office, a trophy for a faded dream.
As a DVX owner who was debating about an upgrade to an HVX, I opted instead to pool resources with another local filmmaker and share in the costs of a Red. After all, even though my DVX has paid for itself, it still spends more time on the shelf than it does shooting. So why not co-own it.
Having owned a DVX as my first camera, I can't imagine not owning a camera ever again. The chance to be spontaneously creative cannot be duplicated by renting. When you own, you can to test and experiment as much as you want. That's how you get better. If you're serious and starting out, I can't imagine any better investment in learning the craft than being able to shoot something every day with a camera you have at the ready.
I don't think a single lens and a single hard drive is such a bad idea either. Many great filmmakers have shot movies with barely more than a single lens.
You can wait a few years, if you have the time, and then the prices will come down for this technology and the debate about renting or owning will be even less relevant. For now, it's still a serious game with serious risks (even at this revolutionary price point). Most of us will be chewed up and spitout. And some of us will make movies people will want to watch with whatever tools we have at our disposal.
But why make a film with only one lens? Just so it can be 4K? Why not spend a tenth as much and treat your audience to multiple focal lengths at 720p?
Rushmore was a great movie, visually strong.
it was all shot on a 27mm I believe (but could have been 40mm anamorphic, but regardless, it was one focal length).
Sometimes it's nice to have one FOV for an entire story.
Just playing devils advocate there of course
Polanski during the 60s and 70s only shot on one focal length. He's also a genius. Gut feeling is that it was his genius, not his choice of focal length, that makes his films so genius.
But that's by the by.
I -personally - don't plan on buying or owning a Red camera. I don't want to be in the business of owning a camera, I just want to make stuff.
If I want to make an indie movie then I'm better of renting the camera. At $1500 a day for a full kit (guestimate but reasonable), its still cheaper to rent a camera for a two month shooting schedule than it is to buy it. If I don't think my movie can't make enough money to pay back the camera rental, then I have no business making the damn movie that way.
TVCs and Music Videos are different, because they never tap into the economies of scale of film production (3 day weeks etc) and you often need to be able to just go and grab footage. If I was running a mid level TVC/MV house, then I'd consider owning a Red and absorbing the TCO over a few years over myriad paying productions, and writing the depreciation off against tax. But that still wouldn't be *me* owning it -- it'd be a business whose business is being in business :)
The Red is fantastic for the rental market - which is most of the professional market. I I grew so tired a few years ago of paying way too much to rent a digibeta. I still pay way too much to rent a varicam. The red will "correct' those prices as it will be more ubiqutous and its cost more widely known. That's a great thing, as it lowers the cost of entry...
Just my 10c.
MIltos, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm buying the Red One simply for the DoF. Currently i'm working with an HVX with a Redrock M2 35m adapter in front, which feels like a shaky patch to the image quality i wish to have. Not to mention the extra parts and hassle of simply shooting, but losing at least 3 stops of light (m2 light loss, plus whatever you're stopping your 35mm lens to, and the HDcam at widest f2) We must consider those that have to hire lighting trucks to compensate for the light loss!
so for those who are already working with a setup halfway there, the 30k budgeted for this cam is dead on and cheaper than even a Varicam body!
At any rate, i don't care what the HD size is. I wouldn't care if it peaked at 720p, just give me that film DoF without major lightloss, and i'll be majorly happy.
Why is all this so hard for people to deal with... Well, as you said so well, its because many people like toys. Sometimes that toy is the AT-AT and sometimes it is a RED camera. Once you fixate on a new toy it is is sooooo hard to let go, let alone have someone else tell you you're fixation isn't worth the effort. Or the cost.
For those people out there who still disregarded the Red One from day one, it is now becoming clear that the camera stands up well in filming conditions. Yes there have been teething problems along the way (heat problems etc) but more and more people are using the camera and being more than satisfied with the resulting images.
The Red One camera is becoming available throughout the UK for hire for those who cannot afford to buy one. Camera Speed has already delcared the rates it is hiring the camera for.
www.cameraspeed.co.uk
I have been on shoots that sometimes required the camera to be available for a few extra days because of impromptu situations that might pop up, unpredictable weather.
I guess if I could charge every camera rental day to to the client, it would not make sense for me to buy one. But it would cost more for me to rent a camera and wait for the right weather.