What expensive camera obsessions are doing for filmmaking

167

Canon C300 - The best thing since sliced bread until the next one

Are filmmakers being superseded by cameras? The gear is often the first thing that is noticed, indeed it is often the first reason you get hired says Art Adams…

From his ProVideo Coalition article:

More often than not the camera is booked on a job before I am. This puzzles me, because if the camera shows up for work and I don’t nothing is going to happen. If I show up, however, any number of [appropriately chosen]cameras can also show up and everything will be fine.

As cinematographers we should be selling ourselves on our unique vision and abilities, but instead we often find ourselves selling gear. “Yes, I can use that camera,” “Yes, I own that piece of gear,” “Yes, I can give you a better deal than a rental house,” etc. The problem with this approach is that it works as long as there’s no one cheaper around… and there’s always someone cheaper.

Somehow the focus must be shifted from the technology back to the people who use the technology, because that’s where all the creativity is.

There are clear signs that digital technology is killing recognition due to artists. Comments like “Oh the camera did a great job there” when actually, the shooter did, are commonplace.

Now I must say I am interested in the gear, the technology. Before becoming a filmmaker electronics was my main passion in life. It is part of who I am and it is the reason I write a blog about it (this one). I love it. But being interested in something and recognising the worth in something are two different things.

I am totally satisfied with the GH2, a sub $1000 camera. It is 100% up to me to go and make best use of it. The more I realise this the better filmmaker I become, the more I build a network of contacts, build links with actors, actresses and other creative filmmakers, travel, shoot in interesting locations and hone my eye as a cinematographer. Part of the reason I like cheap gear is I like low-fi looks, and putting life into an otherwise ‘too clean’ sterile HD image.

I find it interesting that Ryan Koo of Nofilmschool recently pre-ordered the new Scarlet-X for $10k, and once all the accessories and SSD cards are accounted for it will cost upwards of $20k. Before his successful Kickstarter campaign Koo was a DSLR shooter and he still is an aspiring filmmaker, and I wish him the best of luck. Of course he can invest how he sees fit but isn’t the generously donated $120k better spent on the actual film? Hell knows why he felt he needed it. It is like a guitarist joining a band and immediately feeling the need to splash $10k on a guitar and $4k on an amp before writing songs and jamming with his band members.

The obsession with expensive gear seems all-ecompassing in the filmmaking community. Is it a reflection of the greater sweep of consumerism dominating the world? Could it be that people feel the need to boost their presence and their self esteem, to justify their talents with bigger and better acquisitions?

We’re filmmakers not camera salesmen. The only thing I want to sell is the stuff in my head – the visual talent, the ideas, the experience.

What strikes me when reading Steve Jobs’s biography recently was that Apple was truly born of the hippie counter-culture of the 1970’s. These kids believed in working together, furthering themselves and their own creativity – not in material possessions and the acquisition of wealth.

The emphasis was all on yourself and the journey of enlightenment, not a journey of one’s career toward an establishment and the extravagant purchases made along the way.

Apple was started at a hobbyist meeting of less than 100 people, and the first Apple computers were manufactured in a garage, the product of a genius not too dissimilar to Vitaliy Kiselev (Steve Wozniak).

Today hobbyists are seen in a quite different light. They are the ‘amateurs’ with sub-standard gear not capable of professional results. This is nonsense and always has been. Even the largest filmmaking name starts off as a amateur hobbyist with an interest and no money to execute it! The biggest companies in the world usually start off in the mind of one person in a garage as a hobby or a fund raising exercise. The mass-market ‘consumer’ computers of the home went onto to truly change the world and our technology culture, not the super-computer mainframes of IBM who’s engineers looked down at Apple as ‘amateurs’, and their creations as ‘toys’.

In my view, spending a large part of your budget or $20k on a camera only makes sense if you are doing a spec-job that specifically requires a certain camera feature (for example, over crank for slow mo). The chase for better specced cameras, better image quality, more expensive gear and more elaborate rigging is creatively fruitless. It is a complete waste of time for the aspiring filmmaker.

It is an attempt to buy success from outside sources.

Real success comes from within.

Share.

About Author

British filmmaker and editor of EOSHD, Andrew works in Berlin on his own self funded filmmaking and video projects.

167 Comments

  1. Wow, my editing instructor showed me this same article yesterday and now you cover it the following day.

    I respect Koo, but I suspect he is getting a little too giddy from all that newly found money he now has to spend.

    The money would be better spent elsewhere. Good talent ain’t cheap.

  2. tuliocampregher on

    We are in the point now that any camera will do cinema quality, you could shoot a film on an iPhone 4s or HX9v or GH2 or NEX 5n. But companies want to make money, and bad film-makers think that a better camera will make them better film-makers.

  3. he´s making a sports movie.. i understand why he bought scarlet.. it´s the cheapest pro camera that offers raw workflow with faster frame rates than any other cheaper camera.. If i would Koo i would buy scarlet too.. 4K raw and faster framerates will give him more latitude in post.. and i think raw workflow is far better than silly 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0 8bit ..grading, stabilization ,vfx and other postproduction things will be better to do on scarlet footage.. it´s also investment in your time..who wants to spend all day grading something from cheap camera when you can grade something easily and quickly..time is money … and the last thing.. Koo mentioned he didn´t bought scarlet from money which he earned in his kickstarter project..

  4. Being the good journalists that we are, we should read as much as we can about a given situation before we jump to conclusions. Koo is not using any Kickstarter money for the camera purchase, to quote the man himself:

    “Koo on 11.3.11 @ 11:41PM

    Thanks Michael! I’m actually not going to use the Kickstarter money to buy the camera — the Kickstarter funds are all going on screen. I’ve been saving up a long time to get to this point, and it’s as much a business investment (as any camera at this price point should be) as it is for one project. But thank you again!”

    That’s what $10-$20K cameras or higher actually are, they are long term investments. A RED makes sense as a long term investment because of the 4K capture and the commitment of RED to free firmware upgrades and hardware upgrades (Scarlet is upgradeable to the new Dragon sensor being released later next year.)

    If you are going to be making 1-2 films or shooting many professional projects over a period of a few years, this camera, or any camera at this price range, will pay for itself.

    We want gear that will stand up to a beating, made of metal, not made of plastic. These are professional tools for professionals, if you’re not making money off your shooting, then yes you are wasting your money. But if you need a high end camera to shoot for a couple years, one of these cameras is a sound investment. Specifically the RED seems like a better one for the reasons I stated earlier.

  5. Never a truer word spoken. The RED format really requires a beast of an expensive edit bay too those files are huge. Has Koo taken this into account? 20K gets you a lot of camera hire time.. more than you should need by a long shot! That said there is a case for owning and shooting if say you’re sporadic in your schedule.. but then how much does better scheduling cost? I completely agree, money like that would get you some awesome actor/s and to get awesome you need to pay for casting. Cash should go in front of the camera, god knows just feeding and moving people takes up enough! I’ve got the cash in place and project coming up that the scarlet looks like a great option.. but one needs time to get over giddy spells and focus on whats real. The decision to buy a camera should come after looking at the shooting schedule and getting rental quotes in.

  6. You know what separated statn from all of the other Angels in heaven before he deflected? ENVY. And I can smell a lot of it in this post.

    Your prelude started well, like valuing the talent more than the equipment on projects..that’s all good. But then you get into Koo’s Scarlet-X buying spree and pretty much went around thru it till the end. So after reading this article, instead of agreement, i feel disgusted that you had the impulse to actually post such emotional envious entry onto your otherwise great blog.

    First of all, he has the right to spend the money he raised on kickstarter however he see fit as long as he delivers the promised product.

    Secondly, while I agree that talent should outweigh equipment everytime, as I have seen really crappy work even with RED touting filmmakers..to some extent, equipment do matter. RED in particular. Forget Canon’s mpeg codec, RAW capture forges in a million reasons why its infinitely better to have aRED on any one of your “serious” productions like his pet project. The things you can do in post with a 4K RAW footage is infinitesimally greater than what you ever could with avchd from Canon or GH2. So yes, in this particular scenario, where he’s trying to make a movie,not some 5 minute vimeo clip, its justifiable to have a RED, IF YOU CAN.

    He’s got big dreams, and he’s found a way to do it, we have no right to tell him how to spend his earned funding because he, above anyone else should know what to prioritize.

  7. Look what ujojazvec and I wrote. He bought it with separate money.

    I think Andrew really needs to correct this post immediately, I like both NoFilmSchool and EOSHD, but let’s not spread lies when information is clearly available.

  8. “I think Andrew really needs to correct this post immediately, I like both NoFilmSchool and EOSHD, but let’s not spread lies when information is clearly available.”
    that´s right , Koo´s making feature film.. i think scarlet makes sense here.. i am a DSLR shooter but i would like to shoot on scarlet too ,rather than 5D/Gh2 or FS100 …..if i can afford it of course

  9. You can accuse him of not having all the facts, but the accusation of envy is ridiculous. Narrative filmaking is an expensive proposition. Given the fact that pre- production costs are not getting much cheaper, it pays to be budget conscious whenever you can.

  10. Envy? Disgusted? Dreams? I think you’re the one who’s being emotional. And who are you to make the assumption everyone who posted here can’t afford it? If someone makes money for their project by going public then they have to expect some critical analysis of their choices. This is the internet after all. God knows Koo is critical of the choices and of others and equipment but that’s his right. No one is shooting down his dreams, we’re discussing the pros and cons of buying rather than renting and the well know desire that this equipment can produce. Content is king, and I’d rather watch a compelling story shot on a dv camera than a few beauty shots in a resolution I have no way of actually appreciating. I wish him all the best, I’m sure his project will be awesome. But don’t mistake disagreement as envy.

  11. I find it very odd that he has coverage of the C300 but there is no coverage of the the Red Scarlet. In the past, he has bashed the Red as vaporware. They delivered and it is a stunning camera. The fact that there is no coverage indicates a bias against Red. And as such, really reduces the credibility of this site.

    As far as workflow, the entry level Macs are more powerful than the Macs that were used 3 years ago to edit Red One 4K files.

  12. Phillip Bloom took 4 days to render one of his shorts shot on Red. There are ways around it with the Red Rocket just a snip at $4750. You need speed and through put for which thunderbolt helps with.. but you still need raid, and grading files that are 4k is gonna call for a lot of power. It’s just another costly consideration. Anyhow. I agree there seems little coverage of scarlet her.. but then you are on a site called EOS HD and Nofilmschool are happy to make the opinion the canon is already dead and he has ordered a scarlet and if that’s not bias I don’t know what is. Besides a specced up scarlet with batteries monitoring capability and storage is at the same cost point as the canon. It’s not all about big numbers.

  13. But Nofilschool posted the C300 coverage and the crappily directed Mobius short.

    Yeah, the direction was crap. the cuts were off. There were dead scnes. And the pace and flow of the scenes were forced and disconnected. I’ve seen better shorts. The camera quality though is pretty good.

    I actually visit this site more frequently than Nofilmschool, but now that might change.

  14. Business, business business.

    It is all I ever hear from most filmmakers these days. “If you’re not making money off your shooting, you’re wasting your money”? What utter crap.

  15. I am not in the least bit envious because I don’t subscribe to their philosophy, at all. I am of a completely different belief system.

  16. Philip’s EPIC also skipped frames every second of a major project, and had had to be repaired twice so far in as many months. That is a an entire project affected by a major problem, on a $50k camera.

    I don’t cover RED on the site because they haven’t produced an accessible sub $3000 DSLR competitor yet. The Canon is interesting because it is new technology and the tech will filter down into affordable DSLRs. Plus it is the bigger news of the day by far. RED cater for a very small niche in comparison to Canon.

  17. Wasting your money buying a Scarlet if you’re not making money on your shooting. I thought that was implied based on the next sentence after that – “But if you need a high end camera to shoot for a couple years, one of these cameras is a sound investment. Specifically the RED seems like a better one for the reasons I stated earlier.”

    People can do whatever they want with their money, but unless you’re loaded, you’re not going to be buying one of these cameras just for fun. It’s made specifically for people who are going to get paying gigs constantly, or who will amortize the cost over a number of features. Possibly even one feature.

    You still haven’t fixed your post about Koo – he stated he’s not using the Kickstarter money for the Scarlet. It’s a hefty accusation and it’s been proven wrong.

  18. Good Article. Thank You. I am happy with my 60D. All this accessorizing and more expensive gear make me glad that I am happy with my 60D. The nice thing about new technology is that it filters down to the less expensive gear soon after.

  19. I do understand your point about RED and that it is in another market than what eoshd threat. But for today, I think the big news is not the Canon but the RED scarlet-X. November 3 will be remembered as the Scarlet-X day and not the C300. I am far from a Red Fan (mostly because of their marketing), but they are also democratizing cinema camera but from the top. That 8bit 50mbit 720p 60fps camera for $ 20 000 is a joke, compared to the $ 14 000 packaged 4k raw scarlet-X. That is not to say that I am critisizing you about not covering RED, but just for todays news it is the major announcement to all film makers.

    The Pana, Sony and Canon of this world will have to adapt to this new pricing. For example I don’t see an S-log Sony F3 selling more than $ 10000 in the not so distant future. In terms of market value i don’t see this C300 more than $ 8000.

  20. As ujojazvec and carsonbenett say above, I’ve noted that I’m NOT spending Kickstarter funds on the camera:

    http://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/democratizing-and-canon-beating-red-scarlet/comment-page-1/#comment-117075

    You’re welcome to your own opinion, but I’d appreciate it if you correct the post. You owe me that much if you’re bringing me up.

    And yes, it’s absolutely an investment — call it “business” if you want, but every single one of us supports ourselves through “business” decisions. The roof over my head and the food on my plate costs money, and so I have to calculate whether these things are wise in the long-term. For me, the SCARLET makes sense, not just for my forthcoming feature, but for a number of long-term plans.

    “Hell knows why he felt he needed it. It is like a guitarist joining a band and immediately feeling the need to splash $10k on a guitar and $4k on an amp before writing songs and jamming with his band members.”

    Usually if a band is going to take on a new guitarist, it’s because that guitarist can PLAY. And if that guitarist is giddy about the new band and goes to buy some new gear, I for one would expect the band to be excited for him. Then again, people can always hate.

  21. Nice to see you there Koo :-D

    Personally, I find it disgusting that you’d bash other bloggers like this. I did back Koo on kickstarter, and even if had bought the Scarlet with the money I would have not worried one bit because I know he’ll use to the utmost extent for years to come.

    Secondly, you seem to be ranting a lot about this “Filmmakers and Camera” issue. I don’t disagree, I actually agree. I used to do it all the time (on forums, etc) but I got over it because I realized that it won’t help. Let everyone else think that cameras will make their movies, while I work ahead using it as a tool to supplement my creativity. And if you don’t believe me you can watch my last short – it’s one of the most non-commercial narrative ventures you’ll ever come across in any short: http://vimeo.com/25270591. I’m a NARRATIVE filmmaker, and I respect and learn from the great narrative films and filmmakers from the past. Other’s don’t, and that’s their problem – and you’ll always get those “filmmakers”.

  22. Its not about hate.

    Honestly if you’re not out there already making shorts/movies/anything already and thinking that a 15-20$ camera i your salvation you will NEVER make it as a filmmaker.

    You could make the same movie on a GH2 yesterday or on the Scarlet tomorrow, but the audience does not care if your flick is shot with expensive/cheap gear. At the end of the day its all about connecting emotionally with your audience and that is PRICELESS.

  23. This issue is true in EVERY industry/hobby/sport/activity that has gear. It’s simple: all it takes to acquire a piece of equipment is money. Getting good at something requires time/effort/talent/skill/hard work/pain etc. Most people, when faced the choice of the two, choose to spend money, and feel that that gets them more involved/pro/serious about the activity.

  24. Do you know who Koo is?

    If I’ve read your comment wrong, and you do know who Koo is, and your comment is not aimed specifically at him, then I’m wondering what your point is. Certainly “thinking that a 15-20$ camera is your salvation” is stupid, but that’s irrelevant when someone’s arguing the relative merits of a camera, in the knowledge that it doesn’t change the need for a high level of craftsmanship.

  25. @Andrew: He didn’t say it was “a” major announcement to all filmmakers, he said it was “the” major announcement. As in, of the two, the RED announcement is bigger. He wasn’t saying it was necessarily, in absolute terms, a major announcement.

    Besides that, I think you could do with backing up your claim that it’s not. I personally think it is a pretty major announcement, and certainly bigger than the Canon one.

    You claim that the Canon announcement is more interesting because it involves new tech which will trickle down. Firstly, there’s no new tech here worth talking about frankly. We all knew sharp 1080p24 with no aliasing and less rolling shutter was possible. Secondly, the RED announcement IS tech trickling down; suddenly cinema quality 4K and RAW-like workflow is within reach of indies. Canon’s tech may trickle down later, but you’re seeing it happen right now with RED.

    EDIT: For the record, no I’m not a RED fanboy. I have a Canon 550D which I adore and is my main camera for stills and movies. All of the above is well out of my reach and for my money, DSLRs are still absolutely where it’s at.

  26. By your own statement, I think it’s safe to say you don’t know what bias is. Someone buying a product, while stating an opinion on a competitor of that product, doesn’t make them biased. It means they chose one over the other. Bias would be in the way they made that decision, and Koo says nothing in his post to make one think his decision was biased.

    Congratulations on perpetuating the stereotype of “person on internet who casually throws the word bias around”. Admittedly FelixC has fallen foul of this as well – I wouldn’t expect RED coverage on EOSHD. But separately from that, honestly I think the fact that the more expensive Canon camera was covered in detail, and then the less expensive Scarlet badmouthed (not just not covered), does look a lot like bias. I get the feeling that if someone like Koo had said “Hot damn! This new $20K Canon camera is amazing, and I’m buying one!” then this article would not be talking about it.

    Plus, Koo never said Canon was dead. He said they’d dropped the ball on this product. Which frankly they have.

  27. LOL have you seen the video quality of the 4s? it’s amazingly terrible.
    Sorry just had to correct you on that. But yes if you can get away with DSLRs/SLTs etc for many jobs.

    ——–

    Great article EOS HD!
    I agree with what you’re saying, but on the other hand when it comes to pro work sometimes small details (like moire) can make a big difference.

  28. Low budget feature: makes no sense to buy a Red if your budget is tight. Rent or hire a DP with the camera and aesthetic you want. By the time you finish post-production another camera will hit the rumor boards.

    Independent DP: Are you buying this camera to prove to yourself and the world you’re professional? Or do you have a targeted business market, network of clients, and financial support required to back up the commitment?

    I think a lot of us fall somewhere in between those two sentences. There are successful production companies doing just fine with DSLRs. The low-fi look Andrew mentioned can be beautiful. But 13.5 stops of dynamic range, RAW workflow, 4K resolution, and the ease of pulling stills–all this makes so much sense for someone shooting fashion, branded content, music videos and shorts in New York. That’s why I put my deposit down on Red.com.

    When my steadicam footage is mostly mud because the 7D codec can’t keep up… when the multi-billion dollar client sees moire all over an escalator… when I have to justify the GH-1 for literally. every. single. job….

    well, then, the $20,000 I saved from working my ass of as a 1st AC and lighting tech goes where it belongs.

  29. There is are wonderful quote from Stanley Kubrick, which perfectly fits to this discussion:

    “A filmmaker has almost the same freedom as a novelist has when he buys himself some paper.”

  30. bartvan der horst on

    Red shaked everything up wich was a good thing.
    The scarlett evolved from an indie camera promise into a much more expensive piece of equipment with a delivery delay that rendered every complaint about trainschedules in the world obsolete.
    The canon 5d mark II was the unforseen answer to the Scarlet Promise.
    Now the Scarlett is finally here, i think Red has became just another company that needs to be shaked up.
    All I want is a canon 5d with no moire and xlr, i don’t believe that the solution of that problem is worth another 17.000 euros.

    Red and Canon are targetting Hollywood over indie, i admit it hurts a little. But just a little.

    Cheap camera’s are all about fun and being totally in awe because of the result.

    High end camera’s are all bout postproduction and the fear of having no control over the result.

    I knew than and i know now what my choice is and will be.

  31. @ Koo

    i am not sure if YOU are doing the books for this project of YOURS or an accountant, but any body that has balanced a project book can remind you; YOUR OWN resources should be the first to be included in crowd-sourcing of YOUR project.
    In another word before you spent the $20,000.00 ( hypothetical ) on YOUR scarlet,

    YOUR project had $120,000.00 + $20,000.00 ( Hypothetical ) = $140,000.00 . This number represent the spending potential you had the day before yesterday.
    If YOUR project fails or suffer from lack of funding for a few thousand dollars and you end up walking with YOUR scarlet you have cheated your share holders. They didn’t know you had $20,000.00 related spending powers and kept it out of the books.
    i hate book keepers ! They are boring but numbers tell the truth if one is willing to understand the math.

  32. @ Koo

    i am not sure if YOU are doing the books for this project of YOURS or an accountant, but any body that has balanced a project book can remind you; YOUR OWN resources should be the first to be included in crowd-sourcing of YOUR project.
    In another word before you spent the $20,000.00 ( hypothetical ) on YOUR scarlet,

    YOUR project had $120,000.00 + $20,000.00 ( Hypothetical ) = $140,000.00 . This number represent the spending potential you had the day before yesterday.
    If YOUR project fails or suffer from lack of funding for a few thousand dollars and you end up walking with YOUR scarlet you have cheated your share holders. They didn’t know you had $20,000.00 related spending powers and kept it out of the books.
    i hate book keepers ! They are boring but numbers tell the truth if one is willing to understand the math.

  33. The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders. As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them. Even if the project “suffers” (whatever that means) it should make no legal difference to the crowdfunding participants.

    I feel like your post kind of ignores the whole spirit of crowdfunding.

  34. Generally 1080p24/25 is all you need for film making and most DSLRs are capable of achieving that. Many don’t even require one to take out a mortgage just to cover the cost.

    However I will like to see a Hollywood film (or any other worldwide distributed film) to be shot on DSLR video.

  35. First, I agree with our moderator – I’ve seen some pretty bad film making done by people with all the toys …along with some pretty good work done with next to nothing – comes down to the talent involved. If it’s a good story then even pixel vision will work. And besides, I wouldn’t be bettin’ the farm on either solution at the moment….try them out. See what the results are. Or did some of us forget the first versions of certain things? What ?!? You did forget? Let’s just put it this way…first gen may look good on paper – but when it comes to being on a shoot where the sh##t is hitting the fan – is the gear WORKING? Every time ? Not trying to be a naysayer, just being realistic – I’ve been doing this a long time and I want to keep doing it for longer.

  36. This article makes some good points but I find the comments about Koo to be a little ridiculous.

    1) As others (including him) have pointed out, he did not use the Kickstarter funds to purchase the camera. Please correct your article.

    2) I’m a backer of “Man-Child” and I would be more than happy if he actually did use those Kickstarter funds to buy the Scarlet. In fact, I’m a little disappointed that he didn’t. He’s going to be putting in so much work into the project without pay, would it really be that big a deal if he got to keep the camera? Would it really be a problem if he could keep producing great work on that camera? It’s not like he would be spending the entire $120k on diamonds or something.

    3) If you actually read the Kickstarter page for “Man-Child” you would know that he explicitly stated that he wanted to shoot on a Red because of its ability to shoot at high speeds. How would he achieve the slow motion basketball shots without a camera like the Scarlet? Do you really think 720p60 is good enough for a feature film? If this isn’t spending money “on the actual film” then I don’t really know what is. If he was making an indie comedy then sure, maybe the Scarlet would be overkill. But he’s not. He’s making a sports film!

    P.S. I’m about to start shooting my own first feature using a 5D and a 60D so please don’t accuse me of being a RED fanboy.

  37. I think 720p is fine for a feature, web standard def and even blue ray.. It’s what most renting and streaming I do consists on and looks more than good enough.

  38. It has absolutely nothing to do with shallow depth of field and everything to do with reliable footage, post production options, and professional workflow instead of workarounds.

    Both cameras have the same depth of field characteristics–the 600 dslr and the 20,000 or 85000 epic, alexa etc.

  39. @ chrispahlow

    My original reply to Koo is trying to remind him of the ” incorrect ” assumption about the possibility of keeping HIS OWN SCARLET MONEY out of HIS OWN KIKSTARTER project. Technically he should put those amounts in the pot as a true believer in HIS OWN PROJECT and then he could pull any amounts he wants and and blow it on anything he wants. Just because as you mentioned there are no legal bindings in crowdsourcing yet !
    -[ The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders ] .. then what are they !?
    -[ As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them ] … Deliver what ? Who will do the quality control ? Who will balance the BOOKS ?
    -[ Even if the project “suffers” (whatever that means) it should make no legal difference to the crowdfunding participants.] .. That’s the point ! This knowledge opens the gates to our ” Bohemian City ” for all kinds of crooks n liars. How long before we regret not having some kind of reservations for fraud.
    -[I feel like your post kind of ignores the whole spirit of crowdfunding.] … spirit of crowdfunding will diminish with preventable disappointments.

    Crowd-sourcing is a wonderful example of our newfound civilization. Let’s guard it vigilantly.

  40. A lot of it has to do with who is handling the data and the export too. A friend of mine was shocked to see how nice his video actually looked once after I sent him a YoutubeSD rush at 640×360 (or whatever it is!) His 1080p version someone had handed him before I got involved had so much color blocking and quantization errors that he was really disappointed and thought he had a poor camera (it was his first dslr project on a 60D)

    Simply put, the data was just mishandled.

    720p might be good enough in some situations, maybe not every, but it is always nice to have options that go both higher and lower, rather than just the latter.

  41. {-[ The participants in Koo’s crowdfunding campaign are NOT shareholders ] .. then what are they !?} – Well, since it is a donation they would be donators. They didn’t buy a share, so they are not share holders. Selling shares is much more complicated and involves SEC rules and regulations.

    {-[ As long as he delivers the goods he promised them then he hasn’t cheated them ] … Deliver what ? Who will do the quality control ? Who will balance the BOOKS ?} The “goods” to be “delivered” are the donation perks listed on the project.

  42. I find it strange and somewhat ironic that you’d slam someone for their interest and passion in the visual aspect of their film on a website that’s almost entirely devoted to cameras. It may shock some, but cinema is a visual medium. Yes, story is king (or queen), but that story told using captured visuals. Frankly, if Koo shot Manchild on a DSLR, I’d be thoroughly disappointed. He has the chance to make something great, and to skimp out on the primary facet of film (that it’s image-based) would not just do a disservice to the project, but as Koo as the director. Film direction is not just about telling the story, but telling that story using a camera. He’s striving to make the best film he can and I applaud him for it.

    I should add that he’s also posting valuable information on a daily basis for free on his website. Personally, that website’s content has been both inspirational and extremely useful. Getting frequent accounts on decisions made in the making of an independent feature are an invaluable resource for a young filmmaker such as myself.

    While I agree that there is too much emphasis placed on the business aspect in filmmaking, saying that money isn’t a part of it would be foolish. Whilst making movies on the weekend and shuffling papers during the week might be great for some, I personally have aspirations. I don’t need a flash house, or even a house at all, but to survive off what I make would be a dream come true. Reading the frequent chronicling of someone doing this and having the time to share their experiences is inspiring.

    Turning a discussion about two very exciting cameras into a character assassination of a generous and exciting young filmmaker with a passion for his project is frankly repugnant. I shan’t ever be returning to this website and it’s blatant hypocrisy and vile tribalism. Some of us have movies to make.

  43. A good DP with the right lenses and lighting schemes goes a long ways towards giving a picture a unique look than just the camera.

    This is film school 101, yet many of you are forgetting this.

  44. [..The “goods” to be “delivered” are the donation perks listed on the project.] … then they are share holders. No ( low ) production > no ( low ) perks…. Some one COULD held the ” production ” and/or ” Producers ” accountable.

    Crowd-sourcing is a wonderful example of our newfound civilization. Let’s guard it vigilantly.

  45. You need to understand there is a lot of loaded people around who shoot as a hobby. To most average Joes they see 5DMkII owners as loaded just as 5DMkII owners see RED owners as loaded. I don’t see these equipments as specialist only for pros If it can be operated sucessfully by one person.

  46. @OverCranked

    [ then they are share holders.]

    The word “shareholder” has a very specific meaning. You are incorrect. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shareholder)

    [ No ( low ) production > no ( low ) perks…. Some one COULD held the ” production ” and/or ” Producers ” accountable.]

    I’m sorry, but I really can’t understand a lot of where you are coming from. Have you visited No Film School? Do you really doubt that someone like Koo isn’t going to give his all to make this film to the best of his ability? I have no doubt at all. He is passionate about the project and I am 100% confident he will 1) deliver a finished film 2) deliver a high quality film, and 3) deliver all the goods he promised in return for the donations.

    [HIS OWN SCARLET MONEY out of HIS OWN KIKSTARTER project. Technically he should put those amounts in the pot as a true believer in HIS OWN PROJECT and then he could pull any amounts he wants and and blow it on anything he wants. Just because as you mentioned there are no legal bindings in crowdsourcing yet !]

    Indie filmmakers (at least the good ones) make absolutely enormous sacrifices to get a film made. I’m working on my first feature and I can attest to this personally. The amount of money and time an indie director has to put into a feature project is huge. But does this mean that people like Koo and myself have to put every minute of our lives and every dollar we have into one single project? What kind of standard are you trying to hold us to? If people have donated money to my film project does that mean I’m not allowed to spend any of my own money on other things (whether film related or not)? I don’t think this viewpoint is realistic or fair at all.

  47. Great, well exposed article. Thanks for posting! I would add that, as a photographer, the same is in my “world”. Just the other day, an editor interested in my images come in my studio to see my work and asked “what camera do u use?”. I replied “Do u like my shots?” He “Yes!” Me “Do u think they’ll sell?” He “Of course!” Me “Fine!”. End of the story. As far as one can satisfy industry standards (FullHD, 230ppi for a full spread magazine and so on), my opinion is that, IF your work delivers, u should not be questioned about your gear. Are u up to the task? It’s not a matter of gear only, it’s YOU 90%. But in this era, where technology seem to prevail on human vision and creativity, it’s very difficult to explain such concepts. I also have the amazing GH2 (hacked and patched) but to make my work I was “forced” to buy some stuff to build a rig around it: I candidly admit the camera is so small itself that most people think it’s a toy! Completely different reactions when it’s mounted in the cage with mattebox: “woooahhh” and so on, you can imagine. So, IMO, “don’t judge the book from it’s cover” is true and wise but it’s like a “double-edged weapon”: for this reason, when possible, I spend five minutes more with my Clients trying to educate them on the real “value” behind an image.

  48. RED Vs C300. There is now talk of biassness and one is more exciting than the other.
    What would I buy? I would buy the Red Scarlet X because of its spec and price.
    Reality is I’m not buying either cameras because I have no intention of commiting that kind of money. I’m happy to fork out upto £3k for a big sensor dSLR that deliver great video and because of my lens investment I will be looking at the new 4k video dSLR Canon will bring out. That is why the C300 announcement appeals to me, not that I’m getting one but the tech from that will get implemented to dSLR video. 5DMkII helped influence the development of the C300 this tells you something about Canon’s intention to share technology with their cinema and dSLR cameras. I would expect electronic ND filters from the C300 debuting in future Canon dSLRs.

  49. This a sad day

    As a GH2 owner and user, i get a lot of information from this website and have found it extremely helpful for getting the best out of the little beast of camera.

    However this post has revealed the true value of yourself as a human being and i will no longer be accessing this website. I can find information in other ways and on other sites/forums and as such will avoid this like the plague. With this i turn to Koo for the indie film insight, who is a filmmaker with big goals and plans and not another hack with a chip on their shoulder. I supported Koo’s kickstarter program and i will continue to support his website.

    you are the weakest link

    goodbye

  50. Right. It’s just a gift for donating money that there is no expectation of return on. NPR does it all the time and gives people who pledge money things like, tote bags, or what-have-you.

    If there was an expectation for (monetary) return (on investment), then, well, it’d be a security. And I don’t think you can sell securities like that.

  51. The whole project is questionable to me. On kickstarter he says he needs $15,000 explicitly to rent a Red camera. He never mentions he has money or funding to buy the camera already, which he had to have known when he posted his request on kickstarter. Now, essentially, the $15,000 he raised to rent the Red isn’t needed, but it doesn’t appear that he’s giving it back to those who donated it specifically for what he requested it. He stated on here and nofilmschool that the money came not from kickstarter funds (but from his funds or another). It’s very shady to me. Did he actually have the funds or is he using kickstarter funds to buy a camera for himself – which isn’t what he said he’d do. Again, he needs to return the $15,000 and I think he has a lot more explaining to do. He appears way more interested in self-promotion than actually making a movie. I won’t be surprised if it doesn’t get made and I won’t be surprised by anything the money gets spent on.

  52. You are the one who has a lot of correcting to do – starting with giving the donators back all of their money. You are in this for you and you alone – that shows through clearly in your writing. There have been filmmakers prosecuted for inappropriate expenditures stating they were need for the movies in states giving tax credits and they denied using funds inappropriately initially and either plead guilty or were convicted – so filmmakers are not above using funds inappropriately and in some cases the “movies” appear to be fronts for other purposes. Your purchase goes against what you stated on kickstarter by a long shot and should result in you giving back all money – you of course don’t seem to be the type who would. And there’s a difference between people hating and people expecting responsibility.

  53. Maybe EOSHD or some of the more experienced posters can answer this, but do you really need a RED camera to film a sports film (with requisite movement) well.

  54. @chrispahlow
    [ …If people have donated money to my film project does that mean I’m not allowed to spend any of my own money on other things (whether film related or not)? I don’t think this viewpoint is realistic or fair at all. ]

    As long as you had openly and clearly ( realistically ) had told your potential donors ( share holders ) about your intentions and those” Other ” related activities at the time you were fetching for their money – then it’s all fair and honest.
    i’m not sure if you can put aside your relationship with Koo in this case. Would you donate in a project as willingly if you knew the person begging for your money has many other parallel stuff going on? Would you donate to a project if you knew the producer is keeping HIS OWN investments out of it ?

    i have nothing against Koo personaly. My concern is the future of Crowdsourcing. It’s a wonderful thing going for ALL of us. We are the guardians. Let’s prevent than cure. Already some ugly patterns taking shape in Kikstarter. Soon it will be very difficult to earn the trust of crowds if we continue taking matters too lightly with crowds trust.
    Yes, Koo and others need to through in their own assets in the project. That’s over and above their best efforts to accomplish what was promised. If we don’t take care of Crowsourcing soon enough a few crooks and liars will pack in a bunch goods from trusty crowd, vomit some half digested product and walk away. Then the true artist, entrepreneur, … whom is ready to give his life for a project will have a tough time to prove his/her honesty.

  55. @newone. And what has it got to do with you or eoshd? The man has simply put a deposit on a camera from his own pocket-that’s no one business but his. If you think some sort of fraud has occurred you can contact Kickstarter via the contact link at the bottom of their website or even contact the man himself: http://nofilmschool.com/contact/ , if not i suggest you stop defaming the man before you get yourself in some sort of legal trouble

    I don’t see why people are getting their knickers in a twist over this. Its generally quite wise to buy rather than rent filmmaking equipment, and then sell it afterwards when making a film. You can normally save quite a substantial amount. I assume he’ll keep the camera, but if he changes his mind he’ll probably recoup the majority of the money.

    Lastly, the tone of this article is incredibly patronizing Andrew and smacks of jealousy. I don’t think you’re in a position to judge Koo as a ‘hobbyist’.

  56. There’s a difference between fantasy and reality – you don’t beg for money saying you’re going to RENT tools and then BUY them with money you claim isn’t from the donations – meaning you got the donations, but aren’t using the money as you had stated. Accountants and anyone would get fired in the real world for doing such a thing – but learning that entails having a job and understanding the real world. And this issue also has a lot to do with filmmaking as people are being prosecuted for illegal antics in the film world with finances – some films appear to be fronts for other purposes. If you want to beg people for money, you had better explain everything to them. He didn’t post any update to kickstarter about not using the funds as intended or what he is going to do with the $15000 for renting the camera. It is everybody’s business when he makes it everyone’s business. And yes, I did take it straight to him, but he wouldn’t comment on it despite his sassiness about this article. Defaming isn’t grounds for legal trouble and it would imply that you have fame to begin with.

  57. and…for those dropping all the cash on the RED Scarlet deposit…
    Don’t you find it a little ODD that there is absolutely no actual demo clips of footage from the new camera?
    Not one!! What’s up with that? That is without question a first time stunt in my book, particularly in this day and age. Hey Red Guys – come on…slick up your campaign a little and SHOW WHAT a freakin’ $20,000 investment gets you!! Oh…sorry..maybe the kinks are still being worked out…like ALL the previous (and current) releases. And I’m a fan of this company too – just perplexed…

  58. Could someone point me to shorts that Ryan Koo have already shot? I’m interested to see his style. Searched on Vimeo but couldn’t seem to find any. Cheers.

  59. Overcranked:

    I would agree with you, but with a caveat. Which is that the film-maker knew his film would cost $140,000 in total to make, which includes equipment rental or purchases (and really, which film doesn’t need that?). In which case spending that 20k “of his own money” (but really, once you have public money in the pot then that 20k no longer technically is “your” money) is morally acceptable.

    Otherwise, if he knew the film was only going to cost $120,000, then I would say he’s misappropriating the funding and endangering the communal spirit of Kickstarter, as you say. That’s because he managed to save his own money because people gave him enough to cover what he needed to make the film. If he already had the 20k, and the film was only going to cost 120k, then morally he should have put that 20k into the pot along with the donations.

  60. quote from his kickstarter page:

    “Renting equipment: my equipment isn’t good enough to shoot this movie. Especially because there are a lot of SLOOOOOWWW MOOOTIIOOONN shots. We’re going to shoot it on something called a RED camera, which can do great slow-mo. But we have to rent it, because a fully equipped RED camera with good cinema lenses costs more than this campaign’s entire goal! So at $500/day for a camera package (a conservative estimate), a 30-day shoot = $15,000.”

    This is what newone is referring to when he questions why koo was building up cash to buy a RED camera but still puts this in the reasoning for the 115k.

  61. I think the question is, did Koo know that the film was going to cost $140k instead of $120k? Because if he knew it was only going to cost $120k, then to me his buying the Red “with his own money” is not a correct statement, because he could afford that camera only because people funded his film 100%.

    Another way to see it is like this: a public lottery gave me funds to buy some new testing equipment to increase the quality of my manufacturing production. I use those funds to buy the test equipment. The money I saved by not having to fork out the funds out of my own pocket enabled me to buy a new building. But the question is, was I right to ask for the public to pay for my test equipment so that I can afford to buy my own building instead?

    Did the people who donated to Man Child know that they are financing 100% of his film, or did they think he was putting in his own money into the venture as well (and therefore sharing the risk with them)?

  62. Alright, fine, I’ll bite. Something resembling a response here:

    http://nofilmschool.com/2011/11/im-ordering-scarlet-x-some-clarifications/

    And apparently I need to clarify this again:

    I’M NOT USING THE KICKSTARTER FUNDS TO BUY THIS CAMERA.

    Also, when I wrote that we’d be renting a RED, the EPIC was $58,000. Since then RED announced the $10K SCARLET, do you want me to go back and revise my Kickstarter page that I wrote two months ago? Oh, wait, sorry, you can’t revise a page once a project is complete. And it was a “rough” budget anyway if you read.

    studio17b, here’s a web series I shot (and, you know, co-wrote, directed, edited, etc.) a few years ago:
    http://thewestside.tv

    Final thought: we are all here to make movies or be creative in whatever our chosen field is. Harping on this is not productive for anyone.

  63. Hmmm… If you constantly turn your back on things that displeases you … you will be turning a lot during this life time. I can imagine all your shots with that GH2 comes from pretty flowers and chubby babies.
    Stick around man ! maybe you learn something. Information comes from PDF files and manuals in the boxes of gizmos. Learning comes from interaction with people. It’s fortunate we don’t agree or know about others opinions. Otherwise life would be death sentence in a garden.

  64. Why take a swing at Koo? The cost justifies itself, the scarlet is a new development, people should be proud of Koo for being smart and investing his own funds into this. It’s nobody’s business what he wants to do with an extra 20k – and you commenters are all talking like you’ve “been there, done that”. Newsflash – you’re commenting on a dslr weblog. Not an alexxa forum. Not an epic forum. Not to your buddies at Warner. No. A blog on the internet. I would assume most of us here are indie, AC2’s or PA’s on studio sets at best, and nobody’s “been there, done that” with everything. But troll away, I guess…

    And EOSHD writer, your post reads as if it were written by a passive-agressive middle schooler unfamiliar with the nuances of ‘No offense, but…’. You seem to be angry at him for essentially leaving the dslr community and stepping up his game into the big-boy territory of 4k… it’s like you have abandonment issues.

  65. He runs nofilmschool.com, and some of his work is mentioned there, including his award-winning web series the west side.

  66. i wished Kikstarter would setup a promissory agreement ( not necessarily a Legal note ) for STARTERs to agree with. In that they should out line some moral outlines about the Kikstarter usage. This agreement should be visible to all parties participating in any project. By this we will reduce this kind of chatter.

    How about we ask Andrew to start an article in the form of draft to serve this important need !
    We can all chip in and form the first constitution for Crowdsourcing. We will be the Illuminati, the forefathers ( Masonic or not ) that wrote the constitution for the Global Village .

  67. His kickstarter campaign and his own funds are entirely different buckets. If I have $2k in the bank, and I want to crowdsource $1k to make a short film on a $1k budget, so as to not risk my own funds, it’s my perrogative to do so. It’s nobody’s business how much money I have or how much I’m willing to put in on top of what I get from DONATIONS. If you’re not what the money will be used for (the production of a film) then do not donate. According to his own accounting, he’s SAVING the production $30k by using $20k or so of his OWN FUNDS.

  68. Still waiting to see the post corrected to note that Koo is not actually spending KickStarter money on the Scarlet. It’s only proper to make the correction. It especially gets to me since I went to school for journalism ha.

  69. Art Adams writes a critical article about a filmmaker without researching the filmmaker first. While studying journalism I was taught that we research the subjects of our articles before we write them.

    “I find it interesting that Ryan Koo of Nofilmschool recently pre-ordered the new Scarlet-X for $10k…”

    ANYONE familiar with Koo’s kickstarter campaign and accompanying campaign video would NOT find this “Interesting” as he stated in his video that he was shooting on RED. He already made that decision. But of course research (journalism 101) escapes you…

    “Of course he can invest how he sees fit but isn’t the generously donated $120k better spent on the actual film? Hell knows why he felt he needed it.”

    A real journalist would have contacted the filmmaker and asked him why he made that decision(again journalism 101). Its obvious that you did not do this. So instead of giving readers the reasoning behind that decision, they read your ignorance, “Hell knows knows why he felt he needed it.”

  70. Yeah and I need to read more clearly, having gone to college and studying that field… Not as bad as Andrew though. I’ll correct, I didn’t mean to slant Art Adams. He actually had nothing to say about Koo…

    “I find it interesting that Ryan Koo of Nofilmschool recently pre-ordered the new Scarlet-X for $10k…”

    ANYONE familiar with Koo’s kickstarter campaign and accompanying campaign video would NOT find this “Interesting” as he stated in his video that he was shooting on RED. He already made that decision. But of course research (journalism 101) escapes you…

    “Of course he can invest how he sees fit but isn’t the generously donated $120k better spent on the actual film? Hell knows why he felt he needed it.”

    A real journalist would have contacted the filmmaker and asked him why he made that decision(again journalism 101). Its obvious that you did not do this. So instead of giving readers the reasoning behind that decision, they read your ignorance, “Hell knows knows why he felt he needed it.”

  71. Seems like there is a lot of jealously on these boards because someone ended up with a brand new RED.
    The rules of crowd funding are simple.
    Projects are listed. Read it. If you like it, pay money and receive the following perk.
    THAT’S IT. There’s no auditing, no balancing books, and no control over what the filmmaker does with the money, so get your nose from where it doesn’t belong. If you’re jealous because a filmmaker is buying a RED, go do your own crowd funding then.

    Don’t trust the filmmaker? Don’t donate!

  72. I guess eoshd could update this after ryan koo explains why he stated he’d rent a camera and now is buying one with his own money but not reimbursing the people who donated $15000 for him to rent a camera as he originally stated. I think he should refund everyone involved after such a move. You’d be better off trying to get him to address that, so far he hasn’t. His explanation goes in line with his self-promotion and is trying to say that he’s being attacked. I don’t think so, it appears that people want a valid explanation for what a large ($15,000) amount of donations that aren’t going towards what he said they are and has been avoided by him. He’s had a lot of time to, but he hasn’t.

  73. It’s his business what camera he uses and whether he wants to buy or rent. His video said he was using a RED. If he changed his mind and uses an ARRI that’s HIS business and doesn’t affect the overall goal of making a basketball movie.

    Again, Andrew didn’t even bother to interview the filmmaker before writing this crap…

    Now Koo is probably not going to discuss any of his journey because people like you think they deserve some kind of explanation for every decision he makes.

    You don’t deserve anything! Its HIS money! He can do ANYTHING WITH IT!!!

  74. Unless Koo can provide his statement that he is not using fundraising money I found this shaddy too

    There is just too many shaddy accounting scandal, mostly recent the Olympus, so I don’t take their word unless they prove it.

  75. Koo doesn’t have to do ANYTHING!!! He is perfectly allowed to buy a RED with the money.

    He doesn’t have to prove ANYTHING to you. If he decides “his” crowd funding money is best spent on 4 REDs then he can rent or buy 4 REDs.
    Its none of YOUR business what HE does with HIS money!

  76. @newone Defamation has nothing to do with being famous. “An individual is defamed when a person publishes to a third party words or matter containing an untrue imputation against his or her reputation” (Liberty) You could be sued for libel, as could eoshd.com

  77. Lay off of Koo man. What the hells with people hackin’ on a fellow filmmaker. He’s actually making films OK? Isn’t that what matters? He went out his way to ask for help. He had a goal, a dream, a film he wanted to make and he’s making it possible. Now no need to hate on that. Most aspiring filmmakers are only sittin’ on their ass just dreamin’. Koo asked for DONATIONS, everyone of Koo’s backers DONATED to Koo to make his film possible. So don’t be judging the morality or the legality of the money. I’ll say this to close, we’re filmmakers and as filmmakers we make film. He’s doing that. Don’t be hatin’ on Koo.

  78. [ Koo doesn’t have to do ANYTHING!!! He is perfectly allowed to buy a RED with the money.] This is not the impression he is giving in his campaign. Black on white ( well pixels on screen ).

    [ He doesn’t have to prove ANYTHING to you. If he decides “his” crowd funding money is best spent on 4 REDs then he can rent or buy 4 REDs.
    Its none of YOUR business what HE does with HIS money! ] With that logic it’s non of your business how one questions his public actions in a public space.

    Once again ; on his campaign There is no mention about the fact that he has a personal spending power to level of purchasing a personal $14000.00 camera. By any moral standard he should have mention this. i am sure it couldn’t have changed anything in the bottom line. In fact it could have raised his image and dedication level in the eye of donors. It could have appeared that he will be renting the RED with the donated funds and he will be using the Scarlet as the B roll. The question is if the project goes down crash and burn ( like that has ever happened before ! ) and the donors money with it to what level he will be effected personally and financially- now for sure his own $14000.00 will be safe in the form of a camera. One would wonder if he was willing to toss that $14000.00 in the pot if the totally understandable excuse of the personal Scarlet purchase was not there. For sure that could have nail his dedication and the believe in the project to the wall.

    And yet again; it’s nothing personal. it’s about the principals of handling donation money. If you think the donated money is his now you are wrong.

    As a footnote i wonder how much he was able to collect if you had run his campaign for him with this fiery language and opinions of yours. How about Koo uses your lines on the masthead of his campaign.

  79. If I was Koo or anyone else making a feature and had the hardware to back it up, Id be shooting on a Scarlet as well. The reason I say that is purely because of the RAW recording and Im sure Koo might say the same thing in part. If I could find a cheaper option than a Scarlet, Id shoot on that. Im not interested in the biggest and best option, I just know as a film maker I can do more for my audience with a RAW video image than a baked on white balance video image, and scarlets are the cheapest (that I know of) option for achieving this goal. In saying that, Id be over the moon if a firmware upgrade could make a 550D into a RAW video shooter at 1080, hell, Id even shoot VHS RAW if there ever was such a thing! Imagine having a future Ninja recorder in 5K RAW hooked up to a Hi-8 cam I got on e-Bay for 8 bucks. Now thats classy (er, maybe not…). What? Im not going to get true 4K resolution from a SD chip!?? Oh well, back to my VHS camera. McFly might be proud.

  80. He also stated that you don’t have to pay 15 grand up front. Just because you use KickStarter doesn’t mean you can no longer purchase anything unless it goes towards the project. He also said the camera purchase is a partnership so it isn’t just him. Also, the camera might not even be used on the KickStarter project. People just think they have the right to say how others should spend their own money. Your funds don’t automatically get intertwined with donated funds. He’s not using the donations to buy the camera, end of story. Would people still fill this way if they found out that during filming he went out and put a down payment on a $15,000 car? Or if he moved and put down money for a new apartment? Doubtful. He’s given no reason to receive this type of backlash

  81. And if I were a backer or audience, I would want Koo to shoot on a RED.
    As an audience, would I want him to film his fast action sport film to be shot on a DSLR or a RED? Please, no thank you to jello motion. If Koo’s gonna put down his money to get a RED and use it on his film to capture the motion he needs, good for him and as an audience it’s a welcome move.

  82. @Overcrank. There is no campaign breakdown of funds!!! He does not owe you or anyone else this!!!! This is really getting out of hand here. I just don’t understand why people like yourself think they’re entitled to know what the film maker is spending HIS money on. Why do you think you deserve to know this?

    The campaign doesn’t list many things. How much of the budget is going towards location and towards actors, etc. If you have a problem with the way kickstarter is ran because they believe the filmmaker decides where to spend funds and not some jealous dumbass like yourself then go ahead and bitch like you’ve been doing.

  83. Because one isn’t needed. We don’t need a promissory agreement. We don’t need you to tell everyone how to enforce a kickstarter campaign. You are part of the problem. Your way is the problem. Kickstarter is fine as it is and we don’t need people like yourself budding your dumbass in telling us how to do things.

  84. How about after you donate, the guy buys himself a new Ferrari or apartment which was not part of the original deal? Hypothetically, this is the same as what happened, because Koo never said (a) he had 10k extra to buy a RED, and (b) he mentioned that he needed 15k explicitly because he doesn’t have a camera capable of shooting what he wanted, so he would have to rent it. Will he still rent that second RED after buying one with his own money? if so, then fair enough. But if not, then it becomes deceptive after the fact.

    Personally, I really can’t be buggered if someone got himself a RED. But I do take exception to the moral principles, which to me is fast disappearing in today’s world.

  85. Kingswell you are missing the point so badly. I said “He can invest how he sees fit”. I also said that I wished him the best of luck. Where Koo and I disagree on this (and this may be a new concept to some of the more politically correct people in the world, but I feel one can have differences of opinion with someone yet still be friends or respect them in other ways and keep it civil) is that I don’t think it was necessary to make a sports film, nor was it a stated goal on the Kickstarter page. I think that since Koo has made his name on Nofilmschool by being part of the DSLR community and endorcing DSLRs to other filmmakers he should practice what he preaches and not jump ship to elitist high end equipment at the earliest opportunity. To see so many bloggers who have made their presence online by writing about and / or using DSLRs move to very high end inaccessible stuff is a shame in my view for the community, and needless.

    Again Kingswell the remark about me ‘defaming Koo as some kind of hobbyist’ shows your misconceptions are many. In the article I said that in the 80’s the computer hobbyists behind Apple were ‘looked down upon’ as mere hobbyists. That you still apply negative concoctions to the word shows that you still just don’t get it, even after reading the article you have put all kinds of weird spins on it. I am wondering if it is ignorance or politics, or maybe both.

  86. Ah. But then there is the small matter of that 15k in the Kickstarter spec, which was explicitly for rental for the RED camera at $500 a day for 30 days. He’d better utilise that 15k for that intended purpose, is all I’m saying. These sorts of things like Nigerian scams really get my goat.

  87. Kingswell reminds me of a suited straight-man sat in the back of a bar on his own who is engaged in conversation and debate with a group of friendly but slightly raucous drinkers who debate strongly with him back and forth about some subject or hot topic of the day. He doesn’t agree with their opinions and due to his tiny sensibilities and thin skin threatens everyone in the bar with legal action, before storming out alone, slamming the door and striding home in a huff.

  88. Yes, I finally found that. Interesting series! Can’t wait for the next installment. I can see why he feels he needs a RED… maybe the DSLR had too many limits for long features. (Running a film school doesn’t mean one has actual skills worth appreciating – you know what they say about those who can’t.)

  89. Guys please try to understand the point I am making in the article. It is not about ethics, although we all have our own view of that. It is not about how personally wealthy Koo is. It is about what expensive gear means to indie filmmakers, about the obsession with it and whether it is right to invest so much money in it, or whether it could be better spent elsewhere.

  90. Overcranked:

    I agree with you again on the moral principle of the matter. Hypothetically: can a multimillionaire source for public funds just because he doesn’t want to risk losing his own money in a new venture? He can, and it did happen during the exuberant days of exploration in the Victorian era. People lined up to give merchants millions for a stake of the profits from goods from the New World, and many became bankrupt because the (earlier) schemes ended in disaster.

    But that is where the similarity ends. I must say I am perplexed by this Kickstarter phenomenon, because the people who give do NOT have a stake nor a say in how the money is spent. It is all based on goodwill and trust. Which, I suppose, should make me hopeful. But deceptions after the fact, as you have been arguing, does seem to me to be a betrayal of that trust.

  91. I completely disagree with this sc_ weird username troll. Koo IS accountable to people when they support him to the tune of $120,000. That is a lot of money. What his intent is, the manner in which he goes about the project, it is all relevant. I am not accusing him of anything, I am just stating the obvious and raising the question about expensive gear and whether it is needed. In my view it isn’t, and it is a shame to see Koo not shoot the movie on a DSLR after making his name in a community of DSLR shooters.

    It is like me writing about the GH2 and anamorphic lenses all year, then suddenly going out and dropping $50k on an Alexa to make a feature with. Practice what you preach!!

  92. I am also perplexed by how much people buy into Kickstarter. That promise of some kind of ownership of a project they don’t really have any ownership over is some powerful kool aid.

  93. This is not about the specific case at hand but I have to say, I also find it odd about a financing expedition in which only one side (the funders) stand to lose their money, whereas the originator can get away clean should the venture fail. I only found out about this Kickstarter thing earlier this year and I couldn’t help but be amazed by the socialism of it. I suppose I still can’t get my capitalist head around the fact that a millionaire can now induce the public through means of persuasion to fund a new venture of his, so that he won’t have to use his own money. As a concept, that is just staggering, to me.

  94. I am not judging him morally or legally at all. Some commenters are and they are perfectly entitled to, I am not. Just so that’s clear. The article is about something else, not sure if you’ve noticed yet but the title is ‘What expensive camera obsessions are doing for filmmakers’, not ‘Koo is a shit head’.

    I disagree with his purchasing decision that is all. Please simmer the emotion down.

  95. I meant, “creative skills”. Teaching is a skill in itself, of course. No disrespect to my former teachers – they made me who I am.

  96. In terms of jello, a $20k camera will indeed help. But we have got to a curious place indeed where our aspirations are to seek $120k funding for an indie film and see that as democratic or commonplace. Most artists I know would kill to even have $2k to spare, never mind dropping 10x that on a mere camera.

  97. Hmm. I suppose now I understand where Andrew is coming from when he wrote this piece. It is also about a sense of betrayal, though not in the moral sense, but rather in upholding and championing “the Cause”. Which is, DSLRs. So the question that has to be asked is, is current DSLR technology good enough to shoot a full indie feature on? Do you absolutely need a RED (and Raw)?

    I think for sure it is far than good enough for telemovies, because in my country I have seen hundreds of these shot on DSLRs and projected on HD screens and they look awesome. I have seen the newer porn videos (ahem) shot on these DSLRs and they look incredibly cinematic. But how that would look when projected to the big screen, to me remains to be seen. Although I am confident that for low budget features they are similarly workable: I have seen movies where parts were shot on a DSLR and they don’t look out of place (the running battles on motorcycles in Captain America, for example).

    So it is about the Cause, and abandoning it means you are saying that the Cause is not good enough for the next level up.

  98. 4k is great, professional sound stage is great, huge riggs are great. More gear is GREAT but it doesn’t make a film better. Story, actors, execution, direction, the camera gets you the shots and is taken further while being assembled in post. “to tell a story”. A beautiful grade doesn’t improve a story. more times than not a great story is all that is remembered. We tend to forget viewers don’t give a rats arse what we shot on or cut it on or how we shot it. all that is remembered is “the film was good or the film was bad. Sick to death of reading reviews about what gear is better. Wheres your script!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????, enough of this brainwash about what gear you need. GH2 7D 5D 16mm, will do, classic glass will do, grading is to express and push the visual envelop to enhance what is already a great shot not to fix crap photography. Latitude haha funny. get back to basics.

  99. everyone read rebel without a cause again. it will bring you back to earth. gear is not everything. break through the smear screen and see retail and tech for what it is.

  100. He’s making a film about a basketball player and needs the RED because it’s a fast action film. So, fast moving all the way, then? Must get the audience tired by the end of it, surely! Why not buy 2 DSLRs and use that for the “normal” scenes, and then rent a RED or whatever for the action scenes? Most sports movies have action only in a third of the running time, by my estimation. More than that, and it’s called a documentary.

    Harder to mix and match the footage from 2 types of cameras, therefore adding to time and money? Consider that you’ll also need a more expensive edit suite if you’re handling 100% RED Raw footage, and we could call it even.

  101. +1.

    I think it all just boils down to how committed you are to the platform. If you have the commitment, you can bend the technology to do your whim (or work around them). Just ask the Iranian directors about working around the limitations (of the system, in their case. Censorship? Pah! An unnecessary obstacle, for sure, but nothing they could not circumvent. Ditto the “no sex scenes in Indian movies” and the Hindustani directors’ way of circumventing that).

  102. only reason there is so many cameras so much gear aimed at us is because if they made the perfect tool we would buy that and thats it. they wouldn’t sell anymore gear which is not good for business. why can’t people see that? why are there several types of cereal? haha several types of toothpaste? bollocks. it’s like we learnt nothing from history..blinded by business minds at work.

  103. the day a well known film makers shoots a feature on something deemed as non pro is the day we all wake up.

  104. I agree with your article. I think DSLRS are what really have made a revolution on Indy filmmaking and the film industry ( C300 is a consequence of 5DmkII), like mac computers back in the 80`s, DSLRS are the tools of hobbysts that became extraordinary for “profesional” mainstream people . Cameras like 5DmkII and GH2 are delivering what RED/Scarlet concept promised more than 3 years ago in terms of lightness, price and image quality ( not to mention that now Scarlet, instead of a revolutionary camera it is a crippled version of a High end model)

  105. Seek, and ye shall find. Heh. There’s a whole series of them by now, last I checked (which was, erm, 2 nights ago). Unless of course I am mistaken and they were shot with RED cameras. *shrug* But they look like Canon shots to me, based on experience with the corporate video work I have been involved with.

  106. Who do you want me to start with? Godard, Andy Warhol, Mike Figgis, Michael Winterbottom, Abbas Kurostami, Lars V Trier, Takashi Miike, harmony Korine….

  107. Why is he Buying a Scarlet with 2k slowmo when what he should be doing is renting an EPIC for the 4k slowmo??

  108. I see the red announcement will have much more implication to the indi world. Now you can’t announce a product with less spec for less than $ 15 000. So realistically cameras like the F3 with the slog update won’t be able to cost more than $ 10/12k. At least $ 4k less. The c300 not more than 8K, if they want it to sell in volume. This will put those prices much closer to the indi crowd. An F3 slog is a mini Alexa. All this has a cascading effect and when you get something as disruptive as the Sarlet-X price, it put the market in turmoil because all the manufacturers will be under pressure because they won’t know how each and everyone will react to it. So no 8 bit camera in the $ 5000 next camera etc etc. Higher native bitrate etc. It will speed everything. Which will result in a win for us customers.

    Canon for example could even sacrifice the C300. These companies (japanese) don’t like to loose face. They might keep it as a flagship even if it sell much less than planned. But they could respond to red with the new Cine Dslr. But with much better image spec than the C300 (omit one or two thing like the xlr imput etc) and competitive price. To try to keep their dslr indi users.

  109. It is like putting the cart before the horse, the sales before the product even exists. It is a leap of faith enough to buy a product that already exists, buying one that doesn’t seems to add another layer of ‘I made this possible’ aspiration to it. In some cases it is justified, but sometimes it is just a consumerist mind washing exercise. There are a lot of good marketers out there, if only there were as many good filmmakers.

  110. I didn’t to go film school, but at no point during my arts class at university in the UK did my tutor encourage me to go out and spend $20,000 on camera equipment. I wonder why!

  111. Andrew, your conclusion of artistic creation and the vision to make it possible comes within goes without saying. Now if an artist is confident in himself, he can create a good story with any camera as Art Adams have said himself. If you’re confident and other artists are confident in their own abilities, there is no reason to bring up a specific person’s name and make example of him/her. That ain’t cool. So what if someone uses a RED or an Alexa? What if they have a 20k budget and I don’t? I personally don’t care because GEAR doesn’t really matter. I believe in my own artistic skills.
    Your blog isn’t really promoting how to hone the inner filmmaker either which, I’m sorry to say makes you a hypocrite. Where’s the article of how to make a great story, composition, character development, writing skills…etc?
    Your blog itself promotes this trend of seeking gear first. That’s where the trend of our aspiring filmmakers are going, it’s gear obsession and be honest, I’m in it and you’re in it as well.
    Democratization of filmmaking? It depends on how you see it. Anyone can shoot with a cheap DV camera, edit on their computer with an affordable editing program.
    You think Koo is setting a bad example for us poor hobbyist filmmakers? If you’re insecure, YES. If you’re confident in your artistic skills, NO.

  112. Comments like this make people backing Andrew’s point of view look real stupid and ignorant. Not really helping the cause there. Stating the obvious. Of course everyone would want to see a good film made. That’s not the point. And what’s up with the last comment? “I’m betting Koo’s film wont be.” A lot of hate man.

  113. That’s his DECISION. He chose to go with the RED. You want to shoot an action flick with 2 DSLRs, by all means, go ahead. Have some respect for what others decide to do with their film.

  114. And I see a lot of insecure posters (won’t name names) who act very childish. They have to defend their point to all means and attack others that threaten their security. Grow up. We should be congratulating a fellow filmmaker for finally being able to get the budget to make his/her film. Not criticize how the budget is managed/handled and which gear is being deployed or how horrible the film will turn out. Have an open mind. Some will do it their way, it won’t conform to how we do it but it doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or subject to hate. Open mind is the way to go if you are a filmmaker or desire creativity. There is no one way of doing things. That’s the definition of an artist.

  115. Gear is matter. Especially a camera which can shot 1920 X 1080p@120fps MAX sold for $2K already fulfill my near. However, neither Panasonic nor Canon are going to show their muscle shortly. However, someone just hacked the GH2 to shot 10,000 fps @480p. Although, I am not totally agree with Andrew’s POV but definitely, being a starter that’s really no need to invest the hardware for the film first. There is another way, rent it! Buy hardware when your position are getting close to Steven Spielberg.

  116. I liked the original article because it goes to the heart of a lot of especially small-business people. Many I know want a business as a way to get gear for their enjoyment. I know one person who put her 401k up to start a business that went down the tubes after 6 months. None of the bankers bothered to check the viability of her business. It was sad. I read photo forums and many people want to start a business just to buy a camera they read about and want. To me, that’s why this article was good.

    You didn’t accuse anyone. I looked at nofilmschool and the kickstarter project site and the twitters from koo to see what was being discussed. But I also saw koo’s comment saying you need to correct yourself, but that seemed odd to me because he didn’t say what he was going to do with the extra $15000 – that would have been the first thing I did, not jump up and down about buying a camera. When you ask the public to spend money on set things, you are really accountable to them. For someone who spends so much time posting to twitter, I thought he should have spent the time on the money issue and clarifying what changes to the production or plans the purchase would have. I think he waited too long and he still didn’t seem to give a specific plan. What he did say, which is interesting, is that he would put it into the movie or rent the camera out for free OR for a deferred fee to the production. Deferred could be used to say he’s going to pay some or all of the camera at a later time, for example with kickstarter funds. But he doesn’t say exactly what he means by deferred, so I’m not sure if he means deferred in the sense that there will be no payment or a payment made at a later time. So it is now open to interpretation that kickstarter funds will be used to pay for the camera, but it depends?? If he knows enough to know exactly how he’s going to do this then he should have said so instead of asking for a correction because by his own wording, it could mean that he will eventually use kickstarter funds to pay for at least some of the camera depending on how he means deferred and depending on what is done with the fees paid. I think he should have understood why there is confusion about what is going on with the extra money.

    As I’ve said, filmmakers are being prosecuted right now for fraud and other issues. The link below relates to filmmakers taking advantage of tax credits. And I encourage everyone to read it. I believe it’s relevant to the discussion of accountability for all of us.

    http://www.state.ia.us/government/ag/latest_news/releases/aug_2011/Elgin.html

  117. So when you see a neighbour abusing his children you… just watch and keep your peace? Bit extreme, perhaps, but the gist is similar: the funds used are public funds, and therefore it becomes a public matter and is open to public scrutiny and comment. Just because a majority of the funders would happily give money to him again after this one doesn’t make it morally acceptable, as a concept. The fact of that $15k explicit expenditure still stands.

  118. “They have to defend their point to all means and attack others that threaten their security.”
    Hmm. Isn’t that precisely what you’re doing?

    “Grow up.”
    Et tu.

  119. @ sc
    when all you have to resource to is repeating the same obvious nonce glazed with name calling you have nothing to say.
    Kickstarter is a publicly run Crowdsourcing gem. This discussion as unpleasant might be for your kind ( what ever it is ) might eventually help to set some guide lines to prevent misappropriation of public trust. Naturally we all want this service to stay clean and thrive to it’s best – incase we need it someday for a project. Incidents like one we are discussing and attitudes like the one you are exhibiting in here are questionable and ” could ” open doors to fraud into Kickstarter. You shouldn’t be afraid or mad of this discussion if you don’t have any thing to hid – naturally.

    The final not : Grow up kido !

  120. You are wrong ! take a gander kiddo :

    http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creating%20a%20project#Acco

    Here it is :

    Accountability Top ↑
    What information should I share on my project page?

    After visiting your project page backers should have a clear sense of:

    • What it is you are trying to do
    • How you will do it
    • How the funds will be used
    • Your qualifications to complete this project
    • The identities of the people on your team (if you have one)
    • How far along your project is

    The more information you share, the more you will earn your backers’ trust.

    What is my responsibility for answering questions from backers and non-backers?

    People will reach out during the course of the project with questions about your project. These may range from queries on delivery dates to specific technical questions. These inquiries should be answered promptly and, in cases where other backers are asking the same information, publicly with a Project Update and through your Project FAQ (under your project description). Transparency is vital on Kickstarter.

    If I am unable to complete my project as listed, what should I do?

    If you are unable to fulfill the promises made to backers, cannot complete the project as advertised, or decide to abandon the project for any reason, you are expected to cancel funding. A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action on behalf of your backers.

  121. @ sc
    – […There is no campaign breakdown of funds!!! He does not owe you or anyone else this!!!! This is really getting out of hand here. I just don’t understand why people like yourself think they’re entitled to know what the film maker is spending HIS money on …]

    Go here for some knowledge kiddo :
    http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creating%20a%20project#Acco

    This is it :

    Accountability Top ↑
    What information should I share on my project page?

    After visiting your project page backers should have a clear sense of:

    • What it is you are trying to do
    • How you will do it
    • How the funds will be used
    • Your qualifications to complete this project
    • The identities of the people on your team (if you have one)
    • How far along your project is

    The more information you share, the more you will earn your backers’ trust.

    What is my responsibility for answering questions from backers and non-backers?

    People will reach out during the course of the project with questions about your project. These may range from queries on delivery dates to specific technical questions. These inquiries should be answered promptly and, in cases where other backers are asking the same information, publicly with a Project Update and through your Project FAQ (under your project description). Transparency is vital on Kickstarter.

    If I am unable to complete my project as listed, what should I do?

    If you are unable to fulfill the promises made to backers, cannot complete the project as advertised, or decide to abandon the project for any reason, you are expected to cancel funding. A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action on behalf of your backers.

  122. [… The rules of crowd funding are simple. ] You are correct but not following them !
    [ … There’s no auditing, no balancing books, and no control over what the filmmaker does with the money, so get your nose from where it doesn’t belong .. ] You are wrong kiddo. Go here and learn, it’s very clear :

    http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/creating%20a%20project#Acco

    Accountability Top ↑
    What information should I share on my project page?

    After visiting your project page backers should have a clear sense of:

    • What it is you are trying to do
    • How you will do it
    • How the funds will be used
    • Your qualifications to complete this project
    • The identities of the people on your team (if you have one)
    • How far along your project is

    The more information you share, the more you will earn your backers’ trust.

    What is my responsibility for answering questions from backers and non-backers?

    People will reach out during the course of the project with questions about your project. These may range from queries on delivery dates to specific technical questions. These inquiries should be answered promptly and, in cases where other backers are asking the same information, publicly with a Project Update and through your Project FAQ (under your project description). Transparency is vital on Kickstarter.

    If I am unable to complete my project as listed, what should I do?

    If you are unable to fulfill the promises made to backers, cannot complete the project as advertised, or decide to abandon the project for any reason, you are expected to cancel funding. A failure to do so could result in damage to your reputation or even legal action on behalf of your backers.

  123. WOW this is so dumb! If you think he should use 2 DSLRs go tell him that!!!

    You’re just like Andrew posting an article with WHY WHY WHY. Without bothering to actually talk to the person who is readily available to you.

    His email is on his site’s contact info. I emailed him before, he answered quickly.

  124. If you donated, go ask him why he bought a RED which he said he was going to use from the outset. I’m not sure why you think you’re entitled to know what he’s doing with HIS money. It’s HIS.

    You’re “FAQ” post is irrelevant. He completed his campaign. It’s over. If you have an issue with how he’s spending the money, go tell him about it. Crying about it on this board, like some others are doing, comes off as jealousy.

  125. Andrew I think many of us are at a loss as to why you decided to write this article questioning if not criticizing the filmmaker, Koo, without interviewing or discussing the subject with him first. Why did you not do this?!?!

    When I see this quote. In reference to the purchase of the RED:
    “Hell knows why he felt he needed it.”
    My first question is, why didn’t you ask him? Why write an article about someone without asking the person first?

  126. We should be congratulating a fellow filmmaker… But as this site bashes anything that isn’t DSLR, this is the result.

  127. It’s unrealistic to say or think that someone should have to stick to one arena just because he put forth a lot of work in that arena. Just because he vested a lot of time in DSLRs doesn’t mean he owes it to anyone to use that tool in everything he does. He clearly has practiced what he preaches up until this point, and it’s his freedom to explore. It almost sounds as if you take it personally that dared not to use a dslr or when anyone doesn’t. It’s not as if he stated that expensive is the only way to go ever and DSLRs are useless. He knows, as do many people such as yourself that technique trumps gear. Just so happens he has the technique to match varying levels of gear. Anyways, it’s not a shame to have them get higher end gear. They never signed on a dotted line to use DSLRs for the rest of their careers/life. Philip Bloom has done a great job of adapting to various areas of camera, and still using all of them. Koo can do the same.

  128. I don’t agree with buying expensive equipment just to get noticed or to get hired, if it is the right tool for the job and you can’t do it with anything else – then fine – I don’t mind what it is or how much it costs. You are missing the point Ben.

  129. No hate at all.
    I have yet to see a good film made by someone who feels that a high spec camera is a first priority regard to the films “quality”…that magically it will make the film better.
    Good for him and all…but any low budget filmaker with a vision will work around any limitations…not “I need this high cost camera because im shooting sports or jellocam”
    Actually theres plenty of cheap cameras with next to no jello.
    If anything the purchase comes across as nothing more than ego posturing and the usual “my film wont be taken seriously if its not shot on a Red investent”
    Horseshit I say. If you feel you cant shoot a film with anything to hand…then the only one limiting you is yourself.
    So yeah good for him he can go and buy one…but money could of been spent better elswhere on the project thats my view. Like it or lump it.

  130. Yeah!!!! I agree! everything should be shot on a GH2! with russian lenses. Either that, or on a small Pen15!!!

  131. Um. Actually… I made that suggestion in the comment on his website long before I said it here.

  132. Probably because this is DSLR site, the people here tend to congratulate only those film-makers who make films on DSLRs? Just saying.

  133. Wow, a guy spends 15G on a cine camera, with his own money (maybe it was put on a line of credit.. who knows?), and people start screaming about accountability in regards to a project he’s managed to get funded? Anyone who’s ever put together a film/business budget for the purpose of looking for funding knows that all you’re doing is a best guess at what things will cost. You aren’t obligated to follow a budget to the letter. I always guess a bit high on a budget, since it’s better than running out of funds and trying to find more. Call me a criminal.

  134. Yes. But that’s not the issue here, is it. The issue is that a man asks for donations from the public, and during that process he specifically asked for $15k which will be used to rent a camera for $500 a day, for 30 days. And then he went and bought that camera. So the question is, will he still be using that 15k he asked for originally for rental of that equipment? If he does, fair enough. If he doesn’t, then it is deceptive, and if a corporation or an individual within a corporation – ie, somewhere actually accountable – were to do that it would have been investigated for misappropriation of funds. To date, he has yet to comment on this specific issue.

    I am not personally invested in the matter. Nor do I care who gets what. But moral indignation at the thought is something which is not to be trivialised.

  135. If he was going to rent the camera for 30 days @ $500 pd, buying it makes more sense, even if it was with donated money, that way he won’t have to beg again. Anyone knows if he’s going to rent the rest of the equipment, lenses, tripod etc.? The Scarlet is listing for $9,750, but that’s just for the camera body, nothing else. Like buying a car with no engine, seats, battery or tires. I made a list of what I would need if I were to buy one. A set of primes ($19K), an 18-85mm zoom (9K), Zoom Control, Matte Box, Filters for same, Follow Focus Unit, at least 3 batteries, memories or some sort of recording device, a good pro tripod (3k to 4k) Cables and so on. I figured that to make it workable for me it would run no less than $60K to 70K. But, My needs are different, I am a pro with 42 years of experience, mainly shooting TV commercials, documentaries and Independent Features, not an amateur or beginer. Art Adams is a blogger I admire and respect. I have seen some of his work on his web site and he knows what he write about. I have gone through the same nonsense he has with equipment to the point of production companies renting equipment without consulting me just because it was the flavor of the month. Cameras don’t make movies, people like Mr. Adams do. I agree with him that people are placing too much emphasis in cameras instead of what you can do with them.

  136. I am extremely disappointed by your refusal to retract your statement regarding Koo’s misappropriation of Kickstarter funds in spite of the fact that he has cleared up the situation on this post as well as on his own site. Also, I wonder if anybody in this comments section actually reads the other comments or do they just wait for their chance to speak. Koo even stated that his initial idea was to rent the Epic. When the Scarlet became available it became an option. There was no hidden agenda to purchase a camera. An excellent option suddenly became available and he went with it. Too many times on this and other sites everyone seems so set on proving how much they know ( or exposing how much they don’t) and not on actually promoting intelligent discourse on the subjects so that everyone can benefit. That’s a shame. I’m sure that what I’m typing right now will be met with either a snarky response or completely ignored but, in this case, I feel like it needs to be said. Your opinion is valuable as far as the individual being more important than the equipment and no one is disputing that. However, to make an incorrect statement and then not correct it because of pride, jealousy or any other reason is irresponsible journalism. I follow NoFilmSchool and this site because they provide me with valuable and CORRECT information. Your blatant disregard for the facts makes me wonder if I should take everything I read in the future on this site with a grain of salt.

  137. Actually I know a guy who bought a RED One when they first launched, had the only one around here for a while. He obviously used it for his own projects, anything he was shooting for someone else, he was an aspiring cinematographer. However he used to also hire his rig out but he came along with it for free, every shoot and so he learned while he wasn’t the guy in charge, learning from the best and most experienced available while still making money from the rental.

    Now he is in demand as cinematographer, because he learnt so much, he is now regarded as being one of the best cinematographers around here… And he helpfully has a RED.

    Sometimes it can make sense and good business sense and make you better at your craft :)

Leave A Reply