Red Lights &

[Bing Bailey]

Im wondering what other markets RED could storm. what about lighting systems ? would people buy red lights. we seem to be only scratching the surface of Using LED based lighting that doesn't produce anything like the heat of regular lights but gives you all the light needed and you can alter the colour temp without gels and they use far less electricity

I'd love to see RED disrupt all aspects of the film making business. Jim Jannard seems to be the first guy in a long time to throw down the gaunlet and just say this is BS there is a better way thats cheaper and I'm going to stick it to them all for years of half hearted I would normally say progress but lets call it what it is slowgress

Thoughts ?

[Steve Gibby]

Hmmm..so far RED has produced or plans to produce: cameras, lenses, accessories, displays, and projectors. It wouldn't entirely surprise me to see other logical and peripheral products beyond those categories.

When Jim Jannard said he wanted RED to be the best camera company in the world, maybe he was understating things...perhaps eventually they'll be the best overall motion media equipment manufacturer in the world...

[Chris Kenny]

Red probably doesn't have to disrupt every existing high-margin segment of the industry in detail. Once they do it with cameras, lenses, projectors, etc. other companies will probably do it with other products, because they'll see that it's a viable business model, and because they'll want to sell to the more price-sensitive buyers that Red brings into the market.

[David Mullen ASC]

There are already lighting manufacturers that compete at different price levels for different markets.

And RED isn't going to get around the cost of an HMI globe, unless you expect them to start making their own lightbulbs next...

What's next, asking RED to start making high-tech electric cars and mini-mansions and them selling them at a quarter of market prices? After all, there are a lot of expensive things in life that would be great to be able to buy cheaply.

[number6]

What's next, asking RED to start making high-tech electric cars ...

Cool! I'll take a RED one:angry03:

[Craig Schober]

There are already lighting manufacturers that compete at different price levels for different markets.

And RED isn't going to get around the cost of an HMI globe, unless you expect them to start making their own lightbulbs next...

What's next, asking RED to start making high-tech electric cars and mini-mansions and them selling them at a quarter of market prices? After all, there are a lot of expensive things in life that would be great to be able to buy cheaply.

but perhaps led lighting systems. they don't do well at spotlighting or even filling huge areas but they're great for on-camera and more intimate setups. and they're a new high-tech lighting market that is still way overpriced by my eye. red could make some really great contributions in that arena and also some kick-ass lighting products for the redone and red-mini.

[Priyesh P.]

Litepanels.com makes some very interesting lamps.
Problem with leds is the amount needed to produce sufficient power. It´s much more complicated to assemble hundreds of colortemperature-matched leds than single bulbs.

But I clearly see leds as the future. Even right now a 250W daylight fixture from "litepanels" is cheaper than a hmi-based one ( especially taking costs for bulbs into account ).

[Mark Hassenger]

Zylight is working hard at creating innovative LED fixtures. The new Z90 model is much brighter than last years, and its color change and multi head sync features are amazing. I wish the prices were 25% lower.

[vanguy]

Anybody use Redheads?

[Vincent Rice]

Good LED lighting may be expensive but it is not overpriced. Nobody is gouging the market. Its a relatively young technology with a large R&D overhang. The best and brightest LED's suitable for film and TV are quite low yield. You can buy cheap ones from China but they don't have the colour consistency or lifetime. They are suitable for effects lighting however.

[chuck colburn]

Bob Hill over on the HBS site is disigning some LED lights for movie work. He and I chatted about sources for the LEDs. This might be of intrest to anyone who is thinking about building some for themselves. Keep in mind the LEDs need to be current regulated for best operation and life of the unit. Prebuilt drivers are relatively cheap.

http://hbsboard.com/index.php/topic,2631.0.html

[David Mullen ASC]

LED's are very promising but they aren't going to create a sharp, projected beam of sunlight through a window like a 12K HMI fresnel or 4K Xenon, not yet at least. For now, they are more in the soft-but-bright realm that Kinoflos and whatnot are used for.

As for replacing tungsten lamps, maybe, but many people love the look of tungsten lighting -- the color of other types of lights is not quite the same. Also, tungsten lighting isn't particlularly expensive, just power inefficient.

Personally, I'd rather RED concentrate on its camera line for awhile before branching out into other technologies. Also, electronic technologies tend to work differently than other pieces of equipment in the whole cost of manufacturing concept - a 1K tungsten fresnel, for example, is a simple device technically and all of its costs are in base materials and quality of construction, so there are limits to making one radically cheaper while maintaining the same level of quality. And movie lights need to be ruggedly constructed.

Same goes for other non-electronic devices like tripods, tripod heads, matteboxes, etc. Outside of the mark-up for profits, you're basically paying for materials and construction, so costs can only radically go down if you radically increase sales volume and thus can mass-produce the item, or lower the costs of the materials used, or the labor involved in constructing the item.

[HD Hildebrand]

Red Light(s) - it does have and odd ring to it, especially if you add the word "district" to the end of it. ;)

[Mark L. Pederson]

And RED isn't going to get around the cost of an HMI globe, unless you expect them to start making their own lightbulbs next...


I am willing to bet that Graeme & the Red Team can make a better light bulb.

Okay, I'd like to reserve #6 & #7 of new RED 18K HMI .....

(after all ... you can buy lights from ARRI)

[Bing Bailey]

Beginning Rant

Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. but does a light kit really have to cost thousands of dollars, its a freaking light bulb. yes it maybe put through way more tests and it maybe of higher quality and have thicker cable. but are the material costs really that high ? I mean the designs haven't really changed that much and the prices never really seem to go down the way they do for everything else when you amortize your RnD costs

I believe RED could make a better light bulb and why not. I'm beginning to believe RED could build anything it wanted better just because of their very smart approach. at least in the european lights the dimmers are built in. don't get that with the US lights. so just how complex is it. I can buy a laptop for 2k that has years of RND work in it and hundreds of millions of dollars development. is a light fixture really more complex than that ? I know its not an apples to apples comparison, they sell way more laptops but with lights you have to look at it as a world market. the choice might be made for us already in that it seems ecologically unsound and inefficient lights maybe banned from use. at least in europe.

and yes I have an agenda , I'm not a cinematographer but I do want the tools of film making to get cheaper. while this will lead to a lot of crap being made it'll also allow people with talent and ideas a little bit more access. as will digital projectors at the theatres. I love film. I love the look of it. but its unaffordable for most people. what I see in each section of the film market is the tools becoming affordable and useable by everyone. hell I think film should be a full subject in highschool or secondary school as we call it in ireland :)

in every other artform the best tools are easily and readily available. but not in ours and I know its a business too. everyone who sees it as an art form should want it to be more accessible. everyone who sees it as a business should want it to get cheaper. we're almost half way there between RED and Apple and a handful of other companies. I know I could shoot hdv and edit on apple and still create my stories. I know every movie has compromises no matter what the budget. some compromises I just dont want to make.

End Rant

[Mark L. Pederson]

This is NOT as complicated as the RED ONE camera -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=ARHF1218&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=192478

[Peter McCully]

I for one would rather see their efforts concentrated on making great camera systems and continual upgrading of the Red One etc. I don't want them becoming another Sony. Does anyone else?

[Bing Bailey]

thanks offhollywood

You are correct its not anywhere near as complicated and yet look at the price. if it where made of gold I would say fair enough. gold or platinum cost a tonne. I think there are some people who would like the toys to stay expensive. I think they feel they are the gate keepers. don't want the elite party crashed by the peasants

well as they say in france vive la revolution. maybe we'll be establishment some day and some snotty nosed kids will be kicking our behinds because we use those high priced red cameras and the blue company has a 16k res technology for 2k. what goes around :) I would never truly denigrate a lot of very talented people in the business. but you know I don't want to have to wait 15 years and receive the royal seal from the studios to do the things I've been dreaming of in the quality that my dreams come to me in.

offhollywood Im in brooklyn by the way not far from you. but I'm from dublin

Bing

[Adrian T.]

This is NOT as complicated as the RED ONE camera -

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&kw=ARHF1218&is=REG&Q=&O=productlist&sku=192478

You also need the ballast:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&sku=102977&is=REG

totals $25,167.90

But this cannot be as complicated as the RED ONE...

Errr - let's say the magic words: "It is impossible to offer that at a much lower price!"

[Bing Bailey]

LED's are very promising but they aren't going to create a sharp, projected beam of sunlight through a window like a 12K HMI fresnel or 4K Xenon, not yet at least. For now, they are more in the soft-but-bright realm that Kinoflos and whatnot are used for.

As for replacing tungsten lamps, maybe, but many people love the look of tungsten lighting -- the color of other types of lights is not quite the same. Also, tungsten lighting isn't particlularly expensive, just power inefficient.

Personally, I'd rather RED concentrate on its camera line for awhile before branching out into other technologies. Also, electronic technologies tend to work differently than other pieces of equipment in the whole cost of manufacturing concept - a 1K tungsten fresnel, for example, is a simple device technically and all of its costs are in base materials and quality of construction, so there are limits to making one radically cheaper while maintaining the same level of quality. And movie lights need to be ruggedly constructed.

Same goes for other non-electronic devices like tripods, tripod heads, matteboxes, etc. Outside of the mark-up for profits, you're basically paying for materials and construction, so costs can only radically go down if you radically increase sales volume and thus can mass-produce the item, or lower the costs of the materials used, or the labor involved in constructing the item.


David I agree with you to a point and so would sony. but the markup is the problem. its the reason sony has been selling us cameras for 150k and only slightly upgrading them. sony is very much into what I like to call slowgress "progress"
what RED are proving is that anyone who says thats impossible or that will never happen ends up with egg on their face and not for breakfast. we should all be so lucky to have the career you've had. I wish talent=access but for most of us it does not. anything that improves access is a good thing

course it wont get me any stars or garanteed distribution. but thats a different battle for another time

[kmikami]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u31/kmikami_2007/red47.jpg

[Roberto B]

..........:)

[Bing Bailey]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u31/kmikami_2007/red47.jpg

thats pretty funny

[David Mullen ASC]

As I said, there are already companies trying to make and sell cheaper movie lights -- this is not a new idea.

A simple tungsten fresnel is not a high-tech design but it has to be well-built, with proper alignment of the bulb to the reflector from spot-to-flood, a strong housing that allows for good air flow, a decent fresnel element, etc. And it has to last over time as film crews toss the thing into the back of vans and whatnot. A badly-designed unit will be blowing light bulbs far too quickly, and a badly-built unit will soon drift in alignment, not creating a proper shadow pattern -- and then fall-apart.

And the sales volumes are not high enough so that large-scale manufacturering can reduce costs. You look at a light from Mole-Richardson and it's more or less hand-built from parts in a machine-shop in Hollywood, by a skilled laborer, not knocked off in some sweatshop in mainland China. But the darn things last over time, unlike some cheaper lights.

This is not rocket science -- there are probably only about ten parts to a basic tungsten fresnel. So the economics of a tungsten fresnel light are simpler to understand than a digital camera. You're talking about parts and labor plus mark-up to turn a profit (and that's understandable -- these companies are not charities.) So if you want the light cheaper, either it has to use cheaper materials, less well-paid labor, or be sold at less of a profit. And you have to remember that a certain amount of profit goes into R&D for future products. I'm sure Jim Jannard has put a lot of his personal money into the R&D for the RED camera since it is a new venture, but not every company can work off that model. Eventually over time, the sales have to generate enough profits to allow R&D, expansion into new products, etc.

I think modern man has become somewhat spoiled by the global marketplace making everything so cheap to buy, to the point where we expect everything in life should be cheap to buy no matter what, as if it is some sort of right. And we don't care who gets hurt as long as we get our cheap products. Some indie filmmakers say that Kodak should shut down its Rochester plant, with all of its well-paid unionized workers manufacturing movie film there (still film is made overseas), and make the stock in some third-world country where people are paid pennies per hour. But I'm not sure it's always a good thing that we can get things made for so cheap. Do we really need a bag of tube socks for $1 or a pair of pants for $5?

Or at the opposite end -- look at a pair of Oakley sunglasses. I just looked one up online and it cost over $100! Seems rather high for something so simple, but I'm sure its costs can be justified by the manufacturer.

[David Collard]

http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u31/kmikami_2007/red47.jpg

Sign me up, but I'd prefer the new 48 series that Matt Trembley is redesigning for better grip and durabiity.

[Bing Bailey]

As I said, there are already companies trying to make and sell cheaper movie lights -- this is not a new idea.

A simple tungsten fresnel is not a high-tech design but it has to be well-built, with proper alignment of the bulb to the reflector from spot-to-flood, a strong housing that allows for good air flow, a decent fresnel element, etc. And it has to last over time as film crews toss the thing into the back of vans and whatnot. A badly-designed unit will be blowing light bulbs far too quickly, and a badly-built unit will soon drift in alignment, not creating a proper shadow pattern -- and then fall-apart.

And the sales volumes are not high enough so that large-scale manufacturering can reduce costs. You look at a light from Mole-Richardson and it's more or less hand-built from parts in a machine-shop in Hollywood, by a skilled laborer, not knocked off in some sweatshop in mainland China. But the darn things last over time, unlike some cheaper lights.

This is not rocket science -- there are probably only about ten parts to a basic tungsten fresnel. So the economics of a tungsten fresnel light are simpler to understand than a digital camera. You're talking about parts and labor plus mark-up to turn a profit (and that's understandable -- these companies are not charities.) So if you want the light cheaper, either it has to use cheaper materials, less well-paid labor, or be sold at less of a profit. And you have to remember that a certain amount of profit goes into R&D for future products. I'm sure Jim Jannard has put a lot of his personal money into the R&D for the RED camera since it is a new venture, but not every company can work off that model. Eventually over time, the sales have to generate enough profits to allow R&D, expansion into new products, etc.

I think modern man has become somewhat spoiled by the global marketplace making everything so cheap to buy, to the point where we expect everything in life should be cheap to buy no matter what, as if it is some sort of right. And we don't care who gets hurt as long as we get our cheap products. Some indie filmmakers say that Kodak should shut down its Rochester plant, with all of its well-paid unionized workers manufacturing movie film there (still film is made overseas), and make the stock in some third-world country where people are paid pennies per hour. But I'm not sure it's always a good thing that we can get things made for so cheap. Do we really need a bag of tube socks for $1 or a pair of pants for $5?

Or at the opposite end -- look at a pair of Oakley sunglasses. I just looked one up online and it cost over $100! Seems rather high for something so simple, but I'm sure its costs can be justified by the manufacturer.

no Id never expect an 18k hmi for $1 but would 600 or 700 or even 1k really be that bad. again when we say cheap we're still talking cheap in film making terms. they might get that volume if the prices where cheaper and more people could afford them. this is a little different than someone in china making $1 a day knocking out cheap plastic trinkets. its like the chicken and the egg. why do lenses cost so much , because they aren't made in volume. why aren't they made in volume because they cost so much most people can't afford them. yet red has a set of 5 lenses for 20k. Im sure they'll still make a profit and they'll probably get volume too in comparison to sony. they'll also do something sony hasn't really done. expand the market for high end tools.

[Bing Bailey]

I don't know about the right to cheap stuff. but we certainly have the right to free expression. its just unfortunate some of us poor fools chose the most expensive form of free expression that exists.

personally I don't think film will ever go away and I don't think it should. its a beautiful format. and anybody that has the good fortune to use it should. certainly don't want any jobs lost. I don't believe everything should be thrown away either. any one of the camera companies could have done what red has done now. but there was no will for it. but like it was for the typesetters and music scribes. there is no stopping progress. every time someone tries it ends in tears

[Bing Bailey]

and this is coming from someone who's european , socialist and believes in unions

[Bob Torrance]

Anybody use Redheads?

Better not answer that. I'm happily married.



bob

[Bing Bailey]

Better not answer that. I'm happily married.



bob

bob you are a sick man , 10 hail marys and two our fathers for you! :)

[redhead]

Anybody use Redheads?
Ha! We are often abused, but we can never be used. :red_bandana:

[Mark L. Pederson]

You also need the ballast:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?A=details&Q=&sku=102977&is=REG

totals $25,167.90



You sure do. And please don't get me started on ballasts. Plenty of room for design improvement there.

[Mark L. Pederson]

So if you want the light cheaper, either it has to use cheaper materials, less well-paid labor, or be sold at less of a profit. And you have to remember that a certain amount of profit goes into R&D for future products. I'm sure Jim Jannard has put a lot of his personal money into the R&D for the RED camera since it is a new venture, but not every company can work off that model. Eventually over time, the sales have to generate enough profits to allow R&D, expansion into new products, etc.


David -

Or you have to sell a LOT more of them.

Great post, and I do agree with you, especially in terms of exploiting labor for cheaper products, which I am sure RED has zero interest in.

I do think that we should recognize that there CAN be GREAT value in RED making other products for filmmakers that are less expensive and better designed - as the "brand" grows that generates more profits - for more R&D, expansion into new products, etc.

[Clint Johnson]

Don't distract Jim with this stuff, his next project is space ships dammit!

[Petr Dvorak]

What's next, asking RED to start making high-tech electric cars

You mean like Tesla ones? :biggrin:
http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1

http://www.acpropulsion.com/vehicles/tesla%20car.jpg