Lost a job...

Glen Vandermolen · August 27th, 2010, 10:59 PM

Dan,

I just read your production diary with the HPX300. Very nice article! And really nice video! It seems like you really enjoyed working with the camera.

Dan Brockett · August 28th, 2010, 12:54 PM

Hi Glen:

Glad you found it helpful. Yes, I really like the 300/370. I own the 170 so the 300/370 is a nice step up. I really like the 2700, I have been shooting a few things with it lately but at around $40k for a fully loaded package, it is out of reach for the budgets I am working with most of the time.

Love my 5D MKII and I have a client who I shoot for who uses the EX1, which is another nice camera. There is an embarassment of riches in great cameras on the market these days.

Dan

Christian Magnussen · August 28th, 2010, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

There is an embarassment of riches in great cameras on the market these days.

Dan

Also that`s what make it a challenge if freelancers want to own gear themselves. I suspect the Hpx500 might be the first and last 2/3" broadcast camera I will own. Moving up a notch and it`s a lot of PDW700, HDX900 and HPX3000, and in a small market like Norway it`s risky business owning high end gear.

I still think choosing camera down to the codec is a bit strange, dvcprohd still look very good and I think some aspects of the 300/370 don`t do avc-intra justice. Out of curiosity, would a Hpx2000 without the avc-i board get turned down over a 300/370? Hopefully not..

Glen Vandermolen · August 28th, 2010, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christian Magnussen

Also that`s what make it a challenge if freelancers want to own gear themselves. I suspect the Hpx500 might be the first and last 2/3" broadcast camera I will own. Moving up a notch and it`s a lot of PDW700, HDX900 and HPX3000, and in a small market like Norway it`s risky business owning high end gear.

I still think choosing camera down to the codec is a bit strange, dvcprohd still look very good and I think some aspects of the 300/370 don`t do avc-intra justice. Out of curiosity, would a Hpx2000 without the avc-i board get turned down over a 300/370? Hopefully not..

In my situation, yes. They specifically wanted AVC-i 100. That took precedence over sensor size or capability. Not that there's anything wrong with the HPX300/370 image, of course.

Dan Brockett · August 28th, 2010, 03:43 PM

I am with you Christian, I think it is crazy to own anything but a DSLR or lower end camera these days. Back when I owned a Betacam, it was simple, you bought your Betacam for $60k, a lens for $20k, batteries and tripod for another $10k and you had the state of the art for usually about 4-6 years, plenty of time to pay it off and make some good profit off of the camera.

Nowdays, you buy a RED or Alexa for $50k to $100k for the package and the week after you buy it, a competitor comes out with something better that all of the clients MUST have you are out tens of thousands of dollars. There are thousands of RED One owners who bought their packages in the hopes that they would continually rent out their package and would be able to pay off the camera and make profit within a year. As usual though, most people behaved like Lemmings and a LOT of people thought the same thing. That is why I have seen fully loaded RED packages in LA for rent for as little as $2,500.00 per month! Because a lot of guys who sunk $50k into a RED One package or even a high end camera like the 3700 just need to make that payment or they lose the entire package.

The market is glutted with high end cameras and not nearly enough work. A lot of people are losing their shirts because they bought gear with a 2007 mentality which is completely out of date. I seriously doubt that we in the U.S. Market will ever return to the carefree days of flowing money we have experienced for the past twenty years. I think from here on out, we are in a new model and a $10k camera will become the new high end and the production masses will be shooting with cameras that cost under $2k. Shooting even broadcast with high end packages that approach $100k is going to become more and more rare.

Unless you are bigger, successful rental house that consistently has a good stream of paying on time, high end clients, I think it is not a smart thing to buy anything over about $7-8k today. The market is changing way too quickly and the economy is still going down, they are all predicting now that we are probably headed for a double dip recession.

Dan

Steve Rosen · August 28th, 2010, 05:04 PM

Dan makes a good point - and it is important that those of us who are independent filmmakers be aware of the marketing dynamics (reflected with all good intentions in these forums) that have been driving camera manufacturers for the past ten years.

Sony (or Ikegami or whoever) sold that Beta SP outfit for nearly $100,000 and were happy even though the customer wouldn't return for 6-10 years. In my case it was a film camera (Aaton super16 and 4 magazines), so I shelled out over $60,000 (I already had lenses). A lot of money. but I was able to more than pay for it with nearly 10 years of producing documentaries and commercials - without spending much more.

Now, every time I buy a camera it is "obsolete" before the batteries are charged. The down side of the 'democratization" of production is that the plethora of affordable cameras makes it necessary for competing manufacturers to up the ante at every NAB to keep customers coming back. Many of the touted improvements will never be seen by the ordinary viewer. They are improvements - I don't question the wonder of advances in technology - but often the buzz words associated with them become gospel without considering the needs of the particular project.

I have a 500 and a 200 and like them - I personally prefer 720/24pn because I like how it looks (maybe I'm old-fashioned, but crystal images don't look very artistic to me) so it would take a lot in this economy to convince me to sidle up to the bar for another camera.

Sometimes I do have to educate clients - I simply show them my reel and ask them to compare it with anything else. If they aren't impressed, the world doesn't come to an end.

Tim Polster · August 28th, 2010, 05:36 PM

I agree with all of the above. I have saddled my approach of buying high end gear as I realize the images out of my current HD gear are still ahead of major market accpetance. Blu-ray is still kind of in the distance for a lot of people and unless you are working in the right scenario, needing 1080p output is just not necessary.

There have been quite a lot of codec discussions on internet boards and I have come to the conclusion that this is kind of divorced from reality. Sure there are some differences, but unless you are actually pumping a signal around the globe, very much of all that is available will work fine.

I have always wanted to offer the best for what I could grasp with my business. The marketplace seems to not be rewarding top quality outside of major film release and television. I can't believe that we actually have to take phone video seriously as a delivery medium going forward. It seems all upside down and to stay alive you have to already have equipment or as Dan stated only puchase under $10,000 gear. I use the Canon line for still work but do not have enough visual feedback for confidence in a video use role. Too bad they are stingy with the HDMI feed as the Nano would take care of this issue allowing proper monitoring, but that is another topic...

Renting is such a pain imho though. Going to the rental shop the day before or worse the morning of a job, hoping the camera settings are not crazy then returning the gear that night or the next day is a lot of hassle. Plus your are shooting with unfamiliar equipment. It takes quite a lot of time to get the "look" I want from a camera. Renting puts you in a position to just take what you get as you do not have the time to know the cameras.

Anyway, it does look a bit more challenging going forward. I see the video world going like the still world. I just got back from a trip and it is amazing how many people own DSLRs these days. I am sure most are on auto but there is a kind of emboldenment which takes the professional lustre off the scene. When things are common it is hard to charge very much. Wow, quite a ramble I have going!

August 27th, 2010, 10:59 PM	#16
Glen Vandermolen Space Hipster Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Jacksonville, FL Posts: 1,596	Dan, I just read your production diary with the HPX300. Very nice article! And really nice video! It seems like you really enjoyed working with the camera.

August 28th, 2010, 12:54 PM	#17
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	Hi Glen: Glad you found it helpful. Yes, I really like the 300/370. I own the 170 so the 300/370 is a nice step up. I really like the 2700, I have been shooting a few things with it lately but at around $40k for a fully loaded package, it is out of reach for the budgets I am working with most of the time. Love my 5D MKII and I have a client who I shoot for who uses the EX1, which is another nice camera. There is an embarassment of riches in great cameras on the market these days. Dan

August 28th, 2010, 03:43 PM	#20
Dan Brockett Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Los Angeles, California Posts: 2,109	I am with you Christian, I think it is crazy to own anything but a DSLR or lower end camera these days. Back when I owned a Betacam, it was simple, you bought your Betacam for $60k, a lens for $20k, batteries and tripod for another $10k and you had the state of the art for usually about 4-6 years, plenty of time to pay it off and make some good profit off of the camera. Nowdays, you buy a RED or Alexa for $50k to $100k for the package and the week after you buy it, a competitor comes out with something better that all of the clients MUST have you are out tens of thousands of dollars. There are thousands of RED One owners who bought their packages in the hopes that they would continually rent out their package and would be able to pay off the camera and make profit within a year. As usual though, most people behaved like Lemmings and a LOT of people thought the same thing. That is why I have seen fully loaded RED packages in LA for rent for as little as $2,500.00 per month! Because a lot of guys who sunk $50k into a RED One package or even a high end camera like the 3700 just need to make that payment or they lose the entire package. The market is glutted with high end cameras and not nearly enough work. A lot of people are losing their shirts because they bought gear with a 2007 mentality which is completely out of date. I seriously doubt that we in the U.S. Market will ever return to the carefree days of flowing money we have experienced for the past twenty years. I think from here on out, we are in a new model and a $10k camera will become the new high end and the production masses will be shooting with cameras that cost under $2k. Shooting even broadcast with high end packages that approach $100k is going to become more and more rare. Unless you are bigger, successful rental house that consistently has a good stream of paying on time, high end clients, I think it is not a smart thing to buy anything over about $7-8k today. The market is changing way too quickly and the economy is still going down, they are all predicting now that we are probably headed for a double dip recession. Dan

August 28th, 2010, 05:04 PM	#21
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	Dan makes a good point - and it is important that those of us who are independent filmmakers be aware of the marketing dynamics (reflected with all good intentions in these forums) that have been driving camera manufacturers for the past ten years. Sony (or Ikegami or whoever) sold that Beta SP outfit for nearly $100,000 and were happy even though the customer wouldn't return for 6-10 years. In my case it was a film camera (Aaton super16 and 4 magazines), so I shelled out over $60,000 (I already had lenses). A lot of money. but I was able to more than pay for it with nearly 10 years of producing documentaries and commercials - without spending much more. Now, every time I buy a camera it is "obsolete" before the batteries are charged. The down side of the 'democratization" of production is that the plethora of affordable cameras makes it necessary for competing manufacturers to up the ante at every NAB to keep customers coming back. Many of the touted improvements will never be seen by the ordinary viewer. They are improvements - I don't question the wonder of advances in technology - but often the buzz words associated with them become gospel without considering the needs of the particular project. I have a 500 and a 200 and like them - I personally prefer 720/24pn because I like how it looks (maybe I'm old-fashioned, but crystal images don't look very artistic to me) so it would take a lot in this economy to convince me to sidle up to the bar for another camera. Sometimes I do have to educate clients - I simply show them my reel and ask them to compare it with anything else. If they aren't impressed, the world doesn't come to an end.

August 28th, 2010, 05:36 PM	#22
Tim Polster Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Arlington, TX Posts: 2,231	I agree with all of the above. I have saddled my approach of buying high end gear as I realize the images out of my current HD gear are still ahead of major market accpetance. Blu-ray is still kind of in the distance for a lot of people and unless you are working in the right scenario, needing 1080p output is just not necessary. There have been quite a lot of codec discussions on internet boards and I have come to the conclusion that this is kind of divorced from reality. Sure there are some differences, but unless you are actually pumping a signal around the globe, very much of all that is available will work fine. I have always wanted to offer the best for what I could grasp with my business. The marketplace seems to not be rewarding top quality outside of major film release and television. I can't believe that we actually have to take phone video seriously as a delivery medium going forward. It seems all upside down and to stay alive you have to already have equipment or as Dan stated only puchase under $10,000 gear. I use the Canon line for still work but do not have enough visual feedback for confidence in a video use role. Too bad they are stingy with the HDMI feed as the Nano would take care of this issue allowing proper monitoring, but that is another topic... Renting is such a pain imho though. Going to the rental shop the day before or worse the morning of a job, hoping the camera settings are not crazy then returning the gear that night or the next day is a lot of hassle. Plus your are shooting with unfamiliar equipment. It takes quite a lot of time to get the "look" I want from a camera. Renting puts you in a position to just take what you get as you do not have the time to know the cameras. Anyway, it does look a bit more challenging going forward. I see the video world going like the still world. I just got back from a trip and it is amazing how many people own DSLRs these days. I am sure most are on auto but there is a kind of emboldenment which takes the professional lustre off the scene. When things are common it is hard to charge very much. Wow, quite a ramble I have going!