Gunleik Groven
04-27-2008, 03:08 AM
As a sidenote to the "This should make Graeme laugh" thread, some of the issues discussed have been interesting me from the beginning.
I thought from the start that RED would have greater market penetration (as a film substitute cam) in smaller markets than in - say the US.
In hollywood, the choices are so many, while where I come from - you cannot really choose between film/dalsa/panavision/D20/RED
It's more like: 16mm/35mm/Varicam/F900/HPX3000/RED
Also we have limited (but good) choices down the production lane.
In Norway - I think - RED ONE/EPIC will be a no-brainer in a year or two, simply because the budgets are of a totally different magnitude. A funded Norwegian film has a budget of 1-4 mill $. FilmStock and developing certainly hurts these kinds of budgets. And make up for some of the cultural miscommunication seen on this board - me thinks...
This doesn't even reach the "indie" levels the American guys on this forum are mentioning.
I don't know how many cams are sold around the world, but I think this analysis is reflected pretty well in the sales to Norway (which I guess must be a relatively good read for RED for a 4.5 mill country...) and I thought the big sales would initially NOT be in North America, due to the sceptism and availiability of alternatives. That the HPX-500 price point would put more people off. While in smaller markets, some of the discussions I see here seem... unfamiliar :)
On a RED vs 35mm test I attended last fall, one of the DPs was asked whether he would shoot RED insted of 35mm. His answer was: Maybe instead of 16mm when the system has matured... Of course we have people who have this perspective here, too. AND: The test was done on a buggy pre-X cam. They had serious issues and it's very understandable that it wasn't love @ first sight. But still... They showed us 4k filmouts and 35mm prints that partly defied that statement image-wise.
There was a Sony Rep in the audience, and he asked how many was on order, and I think I saw close to 20 arms. If he had asked how many F23s was on order, they would have been fewer. More close to zero AFAIK. Not because of quality (that's not my point here. I've never seen a F23 image first hand), but basically by magnitude of economics. In smaller markets we have a much higher insentive to find our way through new workflows and working styles, simply because the alternatives are not here to the same extent.
Or am I wrong?
I thought from the start that RED would have greater market penetration (as a film substitute cam) in smaller markets than in - say the US.
In hollywood, the choices are so many, while where I come from - you cannot really choose between film/dalsa/panavision/D20/RED
It's more like: 16mm/35mm/Varicam/F900/HPX3000/RED
Also we have limited (but good) choices down the production lane.
In Norway - I think - RED ONE/EPIC will be a no-brainer in a year or two, simply because the budgets are of a totally different magnitude. A funded Norwegian film has a budget of 1-4 mill $. FilmStock and developing certainly hurts these kinds of budgets. And make up for some of the cultural miscommunication seen on this board - me thinks...
This doesn't even reach the "indie" levels the American guys on this forum are mentioning.
I don't know how many cams are sold around the world, but I think this analysis is reflected pretty well in the sales to Norway (which I guess must be a relatively good read for RED for a 4.5 mill country...) and I thought the big sales would initially NOT be in North America, due to the sceptism and availiability of alternatives. That the HPX-500 price point would put more people off. While in smaller markets, some of the discussions I see here seem... unfamiliar :)
On a RED vs 35mm test I attended last fall, one of the DPs was asked whether he would shoot RED insted of 35mm. His answer was: Maybe instead of 16mm when the system has matured... Of course we have people who have this perspective here, too. AND: The test was done on a buggy pre-X cam. They had serious issues and it's very understandable that it wasn't love @ first sight. But still... They showed us 4k filmouts and 35mm prints that partly defied that statement image-wise.
There was a Sony Rep in the audience, and he asked how many was on order, and I think I saw close to 20 arms. If he had asked how many F23s was on order, they would have been fewer. More close to zero AFAIK. Not because of quality (that's not my point here. I've never seen a F23 image first hand), but basically by magnitude of economics. In smaller markets we have a much higher insentive to find our way through new workflows and working styles, simply because the alternatives are not here to the same extent.
Or am I wrong?