Jump to content

aaronofnero

Members
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About aaronofnero

  • Rank
    New member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. 5DGH hit the mark. We clearly get a little over-exasperated when it comes to developing technology and it's allowances. The BlackMagic Camera is fantastic, but I highly doubt it can compete with Nikon or Canon in the stills department.. and after all, why should it? it's designed for the novice and low-budget filmmaker - not photographer - but it still isn't designed to take on the prestigious front offered by the big names. Regardless, we're asking these photo companies to supply us with the professional video qualifications in their photo-prioritized devices. Yes, there is reason to acknowledge the success of the 5dmkII and what it has done for bridging the photo and video world, let alone opening it to a new wave of ambitious videographers that is continuously growing. Nonetheless, where do we stand to assume these companies will cripple in any facet by ignoring our demands? Are we even acknowledging the amount of money Canon makes off their lens product line alone? I'm sure they could stop selling anything video related, and they'd still be retaining a massive profit margin not far from what they make now. BlackMagic will clean up where these companies fail to jump on board, but BlackMagic's margin of income success will probably cater to the use of their software, such that when customers move in to the professional field, they can take their understanding of Resolve and BM's other hardware with them, while leaving the introductory camera behind making way for big-league equipment. For any aspiring dslr filmmaker, when the opportunity comes to shoot a high-budget music video, commercial, documentary, or movie, there is a very good chance they're going to rent such cameras as the Arri Alexa, Red Epic, Sony F65, or C500 (whenever that is released) because they can simply afford to do so. It also plays into a much more presentable and professional atmosphere, which despite the illogical reasoning, is still to be warranted. So why should Nikon or Canon, or anyone else for that matter, care to try and give you the big-boy features when there are a handful of those high end cameras with those features confidently sold to rental houses? The last thing i'm sure they want to do is hand out features of their intended-rental products that have lower production numbers to their higher-volume production models, only keeping people from bothering with the rentals. Their is an understanding and methodology to the film industry that I doubt will change all too soon with this in mind. Furthermore, let's say Canon did decide to update the 5dmkIII with c-log gamma, 1080p 10-bit 4:4:4 uncompressed 24/25/30/50/60fps, 12-bit CinemaDNG RAW at 2k, and features similar to what magic lantern have provided.. that would be fantastic for us, but awful for rental businesses as everyone would likely at least own one or two of these and never really have a reason to rent anything but cameras that could handle 4k. You might ask yourself, "Yeah, so, maybe times need to change and the industry needs to mold itself to being more accommodating" ....and it will, i'm sure.. but only when YOU put in the effort to make that change. YOU need to develop the technology and construct / produce / manufacture / market the device. We have no place to demand these companies to make these changes for us, it's entirely in their hands, and its companies like BM who are stepping forward with a reason in mind. I have a feeling that reason isn't to make tons of money on a camera they know other companies are failing to develop. For all we know, this camera might not be bringing any income in, but rather just be a huge marketing ploy for the software. Think of it like a band selling a cd.. why buy the cd when you can download it for free online.. but when it's offered with a shirt or jacket you find interesting enough to buy, you've effectively bought the cd while it was coupled in with the cost of the jacket/shirt. There might be smaller profit margin there, but it got you to buy what you could have otherwise downloaded for free.  The FS700 clearly sounds more impressive than the F3, yet still costs 4-5k less.. and Sony says that the F3 is still better, such that they crippled the features on the FS700 not to beat out the F3.. but why wouldn't they just engulf their own camera and take everyone by storm with the FS700, given its features and price point? Clearly there are probably only a handful of consumers who bought the F3 compared to the FS100.. why not cater to that larger audience? Well, because as stated before, its a niche market, and the rental game / professional field is far more rewarding both by reputation and financial gain to these companies over making a handful of ambitious videographers happy. The same argument can be had for why ANYONE would want to buy a Lamborghini or Ferrari when a new Toyota will suffice just fine.. it comes down to pretentiousness, financial affordability, reputation, and what is presumed to be socially accepted as "professional." Why ask Ferrari to create a car with all the features of their high end line in the price range of a Toyota? You could argue that they would make so much more money, when in fact, they might even make less, while undermining their name to the customers that sustained their successful profit margin to begin with. Let's not soon forget the sheer amount of memory and hard drive space that is required for professional codecs and features. In order to shoot a feature or documentary, you may find yourself needing to spend far more than you could reasonably have anticipated to afford anyways.
  2. [quote author=meltycat link=topic=569.msg3767#msg3767 date=1334205508] [quote author=jeffdeponte link=topic=569.msg3766#msg3766 date=1334204415] It slays me to read posts where people think that a camera should cost $x and not $y. So funny! Canon are in business, yes [u]business[/u], to make money, not to give you free tools! And, if youʻre on this forum, donʻt you already have a GH2? If you have a GH2, whatʻs keeping you from making films/making money? [/quote] yeah, good point jeff.  every decision Canon makes is perfect and we have no right to question it or voice our opinions. [/quote] well, everyone is certainly entitled to an opinion, so that should always be welcomed. However, it seems most people's opinions these days are very self-centered and lower-margin considerate. It would be fantastic to have a solid video camera in the $2k-$3k range, but we have such unrealistic, high expectations. It really doesn't matter what technology is currently capable of and gloating over. The fact of the matter still exists that we can produce 1080p footage on a variety of cameras currently between 600-6000 dollars, and not 10 years ago did these tool equivalents cost over $100,000. If you're an aspiring director, you should use what you can afford, and work up your name to where you can afford to buy these higher priced cameras, and then move to complain about them. We are very fortunate with what we can get our hands on this day and age, and how competitive companies have become over their products. We also have to consider the sheer price point of the components and assets for these cameras that are extremely high-priced as well. If you can only afford an 5dmkIII, why are you complaining over cameras that are designed for the use of lenses that start at a minimum of 3-5grand a piece? The FS700 looks fantastic, and Canon may not be able to touch that right now, but I'd go pretty far to say that canon out-sells Sony video products just in their lens department alone. Canon makes plenty of money, and they obviously want to appease the customer, but not give you everything you want at the price you dream of. Yes, they ought to not want to cannibalize themselves either, but lets be honest.. how likely is that? How inventive has Arri really been in all of this? Yet, they're still the highest-sought after PRO camera for television, movies, and commercials. They are a reliable company who make a reliable product, but a product with a trusted name rather than preferred speculation over the cameras capabilities. Until you have a scenario like Kodak (where the technology changes), you won't see any of these companies fall to cannibalization. It's comparative to new bands popping up the music industry. Companies will create new products, and fans of that company will stand by that company regardless of the company's decisions, and the clout and respect of a company will survive over others. A good point was made above that Canon doesn't care if their 1Dx and EOS 4k are priced the same.. they ideally want you to buy one or the other instead of turning to Sony. However,  They're not going to be terribly concerned that Sony releases an FS700 for 8-9 grand. People will still shell out 10k for a Canon product because they trust or prefer Canon. Same argument for clothing companies, obviously not to such an extreme extent, but still relevant.
×
×
  • Create New...