HockeyFan12

I thought they were down to a lot less now. I think you'd be surprised how much the MX has aged. It was good for its time and put Red on the map (the original sensor was too slow/noisy to be useable and was unusable with tungsten light using the old processing) but the DR is no better than your F3 and you need substantially more light to get a clean image. Alexas are down to around $17k for a kit and are in another league entirely from any Red. You can rent Epics here for a couple hundred bucks a day so I'd just do that rather than buying one but it depends on your market. Depending on what you're after you might love it but also might not. With some work it can produce an awesome image. 

Most very low budget (under $10 million) features and indies shoot prores. What's more remarkable is the success of such an inexpensive movie.
The Alexa's prores looks 99.9% as good as its RAW and 10X better than most other cameras regardless of recoding format. The difference between prores 422 and 4444 is probably bigger than Alexa prores vs Codex. RAW is not a distribution format or a format that you can see without it first being processed. RAW must be processed eventually and the in-camera processing is very excellent on the Alexa. It's not that the 5D makes a better RAW file than a JPEG; it's that the 5D turns out a worse JPEG than a high end PC turns out a .TIFF from the RAW. The 5D's built in processing needs to be quick and dirty to stay fast and consume minimal power. And this carries over doubly to the 5D's terrible built in video. But an Alexa has that high end PC built in (why it's so big and heavy and battery hungry) and beyond that you're going to a high quality intermediate codec, which you'd go to anyway for vfx, same as you'd go to a TIFF to get to Photoshop. So you're getting the equivalent of a 16 bit TIFF processed with the best settings of the best RAW developer, and that's the best you can get from RAW anyway. It just happens to happen in camera with the Alexa.
RAW is not an image until it's processed, so what's being debated isn't even the superiority of the format but where the processing is done. It is done poorly in a 5D. It is done well on a high end PC. And it's done well in an Alexa.
Unfortunately, this issue became politicized when Red marketed a problem (you need to offload the image processing because the early Reds lacked the power to debayer properly in-camera) as a feature ("in camera RAW"). Unfortunately it's still politicized and people are ignoring that this is among the least important aspects of technical image quality.
The DIT discussion is also politicized. It's a contentious position from both sides. Decent rates ($1k/day is very low for wet hire) that take others years to earn and an attack from producers trying to devalue the position on low budget work. Most of these politics do not relate to enthusiasts (same as Arri raw vs prores) except to further largely unrelated business interests by changing how conventional wisdom perceives something's value.

Most very low budget (under $10 million) features and indies shoot prores. What's more remarkable is the success of such an inexpensive movie.
The Alexa's prores looks 99.9% as good as its RAW and 10X better than most other cameras regardless of recoding format. The difference between prores 422 and 4444 is probably bigger than Alexa prores vs Codex. RAW is not a distribution format or a format that you can see without it first being processed. RAW must be processed eventually and the in-camera processing is very excellent on the Alexa. It's not that the 5D makes a better RAW file than a JPEG; it's that the 5D turns out a worse JPEG than a high end PC turns out a .TIFF from the RAW. The 5D's built in processing needs to be quick and dirty to stay fast and consume minimal power. And this carries over doubly to the 5D's terrible built in video. But an Alexa has that high end PC built in (why it's so big and heavy and battery hungry) and beyond that you're going to a high quality intermediate codec, which you'd go to anyway for vfx, same as you'd go to a TIFF to get to Photoshop. So you're getting the equivalent of a 16 bit TIFF processed with the best settings of the best RAW developer, and that's the best you can get from RAW anyway. It just happens to happen in camera with the Alexa.
RAW is not an image until it's processed, so what's being debated isn't even the superiority of the format but where the processing is done. It is done poorly in a 5D. It is done well on a high end PC. And it's done well in an Alexa.
Unfortunately, this issue became politicized when Red marketed a problem (you need to offload the image processing because the early Reds lacked the power to debayer properly in-camera) as a feature ("in camera RAW"). Unfortunately it's still politicized and people are ignoring that this is among the least important aspects of technical image quality.
The DIT discussion is also politicized. It's a contentious position from both sides. Decent rates ($1k/day is very low for wet hire) that take others years to earn and an attack from producers trying to devalue the position on low budget work. Most of these politics do not relate to enthusiasts (same as Arri raw vs prores) except to further largely unrelated business interests by changing how conventional wisdom perceives something's value.

Absolutely. You will save $17k in post on one feature alone. And it's always been an affordable rental.

Most very low budget (under $10 million) features and indies shoot prores. What's more remarkable is the success of such an inexpensive movie.
The Alexa's prores looks 99.9% as good as its RAW and 10X better than most other cameras regardless of recoding format. The difference between prores 422 and 4444 is probably bigger than Alexa prores vs Codex. RAW is not a distribution format or a format that you can see without it first being processed. RAW must be processed eventually and the in-camera processing is very excellent on the Alexa. It's not that the 5D makes a better RAW file than a JPEG; it's that the 5D turns out a worse JPEG than a high end PC turns out a .TIFF from the RAW. The 5D's built in processing needs to be quick and dirty to stay fast and consume minimal power. And this carries over doubly to the 5D's terrible built in video. But an Alexa has that high end PC built in (why it's so big and heavy and battery hungry) and beyond that you're going to a high quality intermediate codec, which you'd go to anyway for vfx, same as you'd go to a TIFF to get to Photoshop. So you're getting the equivalent of a 16 bit TIFF processed with the best settings of the best RAW developer, and that's the best you can get from RAW anyway. It just happens to happen in camera with the Alexa.
RAW is not an image until it's processed, so what's being debated isn't even the superiority of the format but where the processing is done. It is done poorly in a 5D. It is done well on a high end PC. And it's done well in an Alexa.
Unfortunately, this issue became politicized when Red marketed a problem (you need to offload the image processing because the early Reds lacked the power to debayer properly in-camera) as a feature ("in camera RAW"). Unfortunately it's still politicized and people are ignoring that this is among the least important aspects of technical image quality.
The DIT discussion is also politicized. It's a contentious position from both sides. Decent rates ($1k/day is very low for wet hire) that take others years to earn and an attack from producers trying to devalue the position on low budget work. Most of these politics do not relate to enthusiasts (same as Arri raw vs prores) except to further largely unrelated business interests by changing how conventional wisdom perceives something's value.

Most very low budget (under $10 million) features and indies shoot prores. What's more remarkable is the success of such an inexpensive movie.
The Alexa's prores looks 99.9% as good as its RAW and 10X better than most other cameras regardless of recoding format. The difference between prores 422 and 4444 is probably bigger than Alexa prores vs Codex. RAW is not a distribution format or a format that you can see without it first being processed. RAW must be processed eventually and the in-camera processing is very excellent on the Alexa. It's not that the 5D makes a better RAW file than a JPEG; it's that the 5D turns out a worse JPEG than a high end PC turns out a .TIFF from the RAW. The 5D's built in processing needs to be quick and dirty to stay fast and consume minimal power. And this carries over doubly to the 5D's terrible built in video. But an Alexa has that high end PC built in (why it's so big and heavy and battery hungry) and beyond that you're going to a high quality intermediate codec, which you'd go to anyway for vfx, same as you'd go to a TIFF to get to Photoshop. So you're getting the equivalent of a 16 bit TIFF processed with the best settings of the best RAW developer, and that's the best you can get from RAW anyway. It just happens to happen in camera with the Alexa.
RAW is not an image until it's processed, so what's being debated isn't even the superiority of the format but where the processing is done. It is done poorly in a 5D. It is done well on a high end PC. And it's done well in an Alexa.
Unfortunately, this issue became politicized when Red marketed a problem (you need to offload the image processing because the early Reds lacked the power to debayer properly in-camera) as a feature ("in camera RAW"). Unfortunately it's still politicized and people are ignoring that this is among the least important aspects of technical image quality.
The DIT discussion is also politicized. It's a contentious position from both sides. Decent rates ($1k/day is very low for wet hire) that take others years to earn and an attack from producers trying to devalue the position on low budget work. Most of these politics do not relate to enthusiasts (same as Arri raw vs prores) except to further largely unrelated business interests by changing how conventional wisdom perceives something's value.

That's a complicated question. At the highest setting there's a benefit. Whether you'll see it or not is an entirely different question. At high ISOs it makes a difference and with some very high detail scenes it can, too. Below 422 HQ I think AVCHD is better. It's cleaner than the lower prores flavors, that's how good it is, or how bad Atomos' prores implementation is.

That's a complicated question. At the highest setting there's a benefit. Whether you'll see it or not is an entirely different question. At high ISOs it makes a difference and with some very high detail scenes it can, too. Below 422 HQ I think AVCHD is better. It's cleaner than the lower prores flavors, that's how good it is, or how bad Atomos' prores implementation is.

Yikes. Looks like I'm getting Apple Care after all.

You can't buy a house if you can't afford it in your market. But otherwise, I fully agree.
Luckily I have very low rent for where I live but still about what you're paying for a mortgage. The network thing is real... within a year of moving to a large market, my resume has completely transformed. Unfortunately, quality of life even at twice the pay is not different and it's not even that rates are better, just that there's more work. I think the only advantage of a big city is networking and that's pretty meaningless unless you're out doing it.
The more successful people I know run their own production companies in smaller cities and enjoy a higher quality of life. Their networking options are limited, however. 

I live in a city with bad traffic. As in... the worst in the world. :/ Even far outside city limits a small two bedroom house is $600k.
I suppose if there's anything to take away from this discussion it's that the one advantage of a big city is the network. 

This is a very good way to approach things if you can make it work. I wonder sometimes if freelancing in the big city is a bad idea. Maybe it makes more sense to try to get in with the biggest agency possible full time in a big city despite the lower wages, work locally with a low standard of living, network to the top, then quit, move to a small town, and freelance from there.
Sounds like you skipped a few steps, but arguably there's no need to take them. 

Because fully honest is, ultimately, either fully selfless or fully selfish. In retrospect, I'm sure George Lucas wishes he had a guy with the guts to admit the Phantom Menace had a bad script. But he didn't, because the guy who had the intelligence and honesty to admit it he fired years ago for standing up to him or he kept that guy on but he learned better than to voice that opinion.
Honesty is is good... in moderation. Pure unbridled honesty is unfortunately either self-destructive or self-absorbed, at least in this industry. I envy anyone who can have that level of fully honest intimacy in their best romantic relationship for even a moment, but in business... it's impossible imo. But when you can find it, cherish it.
That said, I still agree everything bad is bad communication. An honest relationship is perhaps a platonically ideal one. But it needs to go both ways and that takes time. You need both empathy and sympath and to build both until you have a good relationship.
This relationship ain't good. It's gonna take baby steps, not a sudden slap across the face, to make it better over time.
And it needn't ever be perfect. Perfect is something we strive for, not demand. If you are 100% honest and 100% perfect every day of your life and it suits you well, well more power to you, but if you truly believe it I can assure you others aren't being honest with you. Hello, George Lucas (a brilliant creative led astray by bad faith and poor communication).

Everyone makes this mistake and there is no echelon too high for it. “Flat rate” bankrupted Rhythm and Hues. 
Learn that you’re more talented than the upper echelon now. Charge accordingly later. Learn how to charge way, way more so the even higher echelon that awaits won’t screw you over. (They got there by being good at screwing peons over, even screwing over Fincher on Alien 3!) But don’t worry about the credit hurting you. Either the project goes nowhere and no one knows about it or it goes somewhere and it’s a good credit. You’re potentially more fucked, however, if you’re above the line. Drop the directing or producing credit if you have one but don’t want it... but do so carefully. Drop the financial stake immediately.
An artist with a supervising role (one step down from above the line) on a historically top grossing blockbuster and a senior artist on features that have grossed billions told me this about free work (which I don’t do, so I apply this dictum to low rate work, but higher end people often will do free work to curry favor): stipulate a number of revisions and charge way more beyond them, but have that in the contract. If you don't, you'll be working free forever because the contract says you can and you will until you can't unless your client is fucking awesome. I've seen it. At the highest end.
Failing that, if you truly have no leverage, distance yourself and run out the clock. Time is money. If you have a flat rate as regards money, find a way to leverage your time. Don't let others' credits impress you. That's how they know you're a sucker. Deliver slowly. Establish an end date. Then run out the clock.
But also don't let the resentment build up and make things toxic. No, you can't be fully honest, but you need to change the relationship because it's bad to start with. Create a timetable and a reason why you need one (or maybe convince your client to create one around a festival submission or color grading date). Express at least some frustration. Push back. If you don't, your partner will assume you're behind this as much as she is and then you're leading her on in bad faith and that helps no one. It's toxic to you both. Find the leverage you still possess (time and skill are usually it if the contract doesn't specify money per revision or day) and leverage it, but do so honestly. She's not leading you on in bad faith. The real top brass will use the hell out of you, but it sounds like she's merely enthusiastic and naive in this particular capacity. It's not her fault, it's just bad communication.  Make things as good as you can, get what you can out of it, learn, fail, learn more, fail, learn, thrive.
Do so well and in five years you'll be directing Star Wars.

Of course with complete honesty I didn't mean saying everything that crosses my mind. That was idiotic. Nor a complete confession of all my failures and delusions. Or if I find the other sympathetic at first sight or not. Just in the well-considered personal evaluation of the things behind the current conflict. After I have been honest to myself whether some of it is possibly my fault alone. I'd admit this too. And I won't accuse the other directly, just report my own view, without holding back. If it was too biased, good chance to clarify this.
Not at this stage. My point is that many many false notes accumulated over time and that this caused all this bitterness. In management training courses the outcome is called lose-lose (as opposed to win-win).
I recommend Tarkovskys Andrej Rublev. Spoiler: in the last scene the famous bell founder just died. His 12 year old apprentice says the old man has taught him everything to make the giant bell for the newly built cathedral himself. But it's a lie. Because the bell is so big, he has to command the work of the villagers. He has to punish disobedience, he can't tolerate others questioning his authority. Accidents occur due to his inexperience. He hopes (but you can clearly see he doesn't believe) the bell will ring in the right key - and not break apart with the first hit of the clapper. Tradition demands that all workers will be beheaded then. Time is running out, and in the end the boy is full of regret and self-hatred. In literally the last minute, the prince with his entourage and everybody already surrounding them, the heavy bell is lifted and the clapper swings back and forth, slowly building up momentum. The boy runs away in horror. And from a great distance he hears the bell, clear and majestic.
Most likely intended as a parable for creative challenge. All capable people in this field are also impostors. They don't know better, but they may. They have to stay consequent or the outcome will be mediocre at best. If they sense hesitation in others, they take over responsibility. And they are held responsible in the end.

Everyone makes this mistake and there is no echelon too high for it. “Flat rate” bankrupted Rhythm and Hues. 
Learn that you’re more talented than the upper echelon now. Charge accordingly later. Learn how to charge way, way more so the even higher echelon that awaits won’t screw you over. (They got there by being good at screwing peons over, even screwing over Fincher on Alien 3!) But don’t worry about the credit hurting you. Either the project goes nowhere and no one knows about it or it goes somewhere and it’s a good credit. You’re potentially more fucked, however, if you’re above the line. Drop the directing or producing credit if you have one but don’t want it... but do so carefully. Drop the financial stake immediately.
An artist with a supervising role (one step down from above the line) on a historically top grossing blockbuster and a senior artist on features that have grossed billions told me this about free work (which I don’t do, so I apply this dictum to low rate work, but higher end people often will do free work to curry favor): stipulate a number of revisions and charge way more beyond them, but have that in the contract. If you don't, you'll be working free forever because the contract says you can and you will until you can't unless your client is fucking awesome. I've seen it. At the highest end.
Failing that, if you truly have no leverage, distance yourself and run out the clock. Time is money. If you have a flat rate as regards money, find a way to leverage your time. Don't let others' credits impress you. That's how they know you're a sucker. Deliver slowly. Establish an end date. Then run out the clock.
But also don't let the resentment build up and make things toxic. No, you can't be fully honest, but you need to change the relationship because it's bad to start with. Create a timetable and a reason why you need one (or maybe convince your client to create one around a festival submission or color grading date). Express at least some frustration. Push back. If you don't, your partner will assume you're behind this as much as she is and then you're leading her on in bad faith and that helps no one. It's toxic to you both. Find the leverage you still possess (time and skill are usually it if the contract doesn't specify money per revision or day) and leverage it, but do so honestly. She's not leading you on in bad faith. The real top brass will use the hell out of you, but it sounds like she's merely enthusiastic and naive in this particular capacity. It's not her fault, it's just bad communication.  Make things as good as you can, get what you can out of it, learn, fail, learn more, fail, learn, thrive.
Do so well and in five years you'll be directing Star Wars.