Convincing the Agency?

[Brent J. Craig]

I know I will get spanked for this, but perhaps you could mention that at $20K (Red, CF, Nikon lens) this camera is semi-disposable.

As commercials are getting more and more cutting edge with extreme stunts and crazy shots, $20,000 to get a killer angle in the same quality as the rest of the spot is actually pretty reasonable. With advertisers paying over $2 million to run a commercial in the Super Bowl, I could see shoots wrecking a few $20,000 cameras to create the most memorable spot.

[Kip Hewitt]

Remember most of them don't work for ad agencies because MENSA wasn't hiring. :-)

This is so true. I think I might use this as my part of my opening statements :-)

These are all great suggestions, everyone, thank you. The presentation is not until early April so please don't feel rushed with this. If you guys have any more ideas please drop them in and I will definitely be keeping my eye on this thread.

[Jason Ing]

Could you post what you have as you go along?

[NateWeaver]

Some other thoughts...

Talking about cost savings if you're not an actual, working line producer is risky. Frankly put, if a agency/proco is working at a certain level, the savings of working with Red are not great. They're still going to have to pay for footage conversion (lab), and they're still going to have to pay for "telecine" (which is now tape-to-tape color correction, or possibly 2k DPX conform with good colorist), which will cost just as much as they were paying before.

Simply put, I think the benefits for big boys come if their raw stock budget was say, $20K or more. That's one or two days of one camera 35mm on an average spot. Add multiple cameras and/or high speed, and that figure goes through the roof.

NOW, if the budget level was more 16mm or Varicam/F900 (or less!) in the first place, then the argument is much more compelling, maybe even a no-brainer. You get a drastically better image for much cheaper.

[Chris Parker]

they can now go 2 cameras without adding a dime in film costs....i bet they could shoot with 2 cameras for the same cost as a normal 1-camera film shoot (including the extra crew needed). they could get their day faster in many cases due to this....

i think you'll see a lot more 2-camera shoots in the future because of this....

good for ACs looking for work

[Kip Hewitt]

Some other thoughts...

Talking about cost savings if you're not an actual, working line producer is risky. Frankly put, if a agency/proco is working at a certain level, the savings of working with Red are not great. They're still going to have to pay for footage conversion (lab), and they're still going to have to pay for "telecine" (which is now tape-to-tape color correction, or possibly 2k DPX conform with good colorist), which will cost just as much as they were paying before.

Simply put, I think the benefits for big boys come if their raw stock budget was say, $20K or more. That's one or two days of one camera 35mm on an average spot. Add multiple cameras and/or high speed, and that figure goes through the roof.

NOW, if the budget level was more 16mm or Varicam/F900 (or less!) in the first place, then the argument is much more compelling, maybe even a no-brainer. You get a drastically better image for much cheaper.

Yeah, i totally agree. The cost saving thing is a pretty relative equation. One person's bargain is another person's fortune. However, we are all in this thing to make some money, so I won't be painting too rosy of a picture.

[donatello b]

i know a commercial that shot 4k on RED week ago - agency was on set and approved all shots ... later in post they decided they didn't like framing on 2 shots - so they moved in 30-40% - they loved it because there was NO grain compared to past experience moving in on 35mm and seeing allot of grain ..
production company says if they had shot on film they might of had to reshoot the 2 shots ( product) = everybody is happy !

[Zakaree Sandberg]

just say.. "everyones doing it" force them in with peer pressure

[Zakaree Sandberg]

I could see shoots wrecking a few $20,000 cameras to create the most memorable spot.

with CGI the way it is today.. its pretty retarded to have to wreck equipment. I see what your saying, its possible without breaking the bank.. but not necessarily necessary

[Greg David]

i know a commercial that shot 4k on RED week ago - agency was on set and approved all shots ... later in post they decided they didn't like framing on 2 shots - so they moved in 30-40% - they loved it because there was NO grain compared to past experience moving in on 35mm and seeing allot of grain ..
production company says if they had shot on film they might of had to reshoot the 2 shots ( product) = everybody is happy !

good post