I have to admit…I understand the Flip Video dilemma…

[Mark Raudonis]

[Milton Hockman] “When i think about it, i just robbed some guy $400 for a day rate to videotape the thing and another $200 to edit it… all for the price of a $120 Flip camera.”

Not really. Many budgets would never support that rate anyway, so it’s “Flip” or nothing. I’d take “Flip” over nothing.

In our case, we have a big budget reality show about to start shooting. Sure, we’re loaded up with 6 Sony XDCAM PDW-800’s, and the crews to support those cameras, but guess what? We’re also passing out “Flips” like candy bars to incoming cast members and asking them to shoot themselves arriving. We’ve found that we can get footage on those kind of cameras that just wouldn’t be possible with a crew. This has nothing to do with budget, professionalism, or technology, but EVERYTHING to do with “Access”. By having the cast shoot themselves we get a perspective and POV that is just impossible otherwise. So, I’m a fan, but NOT for the obvious economic reasons driving many of these discussions. Would we shoot the whole show on a Flip? Of course not. Is it an interesting tool to have? You betcha.

Mark

[Greg Ball]

[Milton Hockman] “When i think about it, i just robbed some guy $400 for a day rate to videotape the thing and another $200 to edit it… all for the price of a $120 Flip camera.”

Why don’t you tell your boss that you’ll give him a haircut too. Then you can rob some hair stylist out of $50.00 while you cut his hair for $2.00. I’m sure the boss will just love his new look. Better yet, offer that service to his wife.

Bottom line. You get what you pay for.

[Todd Terry]

I don’t think any of us don’t understand the Flip phenomenon.

I think we all understand it pretty clearly… painfully clearly.

For what seems to be a growing number of non-discriminating clients, cheap-looking crap is what they are willing to settle for, and willing to pay for. Sadly.

T2

__________________________________
Todd Terry
Creative Director
Fantastic Plastic Entertainment, Inc.
fantasticplastic.com

[Mark Suszko]

I’m skeptical that the grungy, cheap-ass look is going to stay popular; these trends come and go like fashions, and at some point, the clients will feel a need to move back towards “grownup, big-boy” productions with better production values.

There certianly is a place for flipcam type work, even mixed in with pro work. I don’t think this is a case of the flip killing off all pro-level tool usage. But you WILL see more pros like yourself, using pro skills on these cheap consumer tools, to get the very best out of them. You will also see pros using pro gear but shooting in moer loose, deliberate imitation of “amateur” style. The differnce will be that their work will be subtly better; better-composed, better lit, better audio attention paid. Like using the FLip under “laboratory conditions”.

[Scott Carnegie]

It’s a tool, use it appropriately. Here’s a little vid I made using the Flip Mino attached to my steering wheel with a Gorilla tripod. Can’t get that shot with a betacam 🙂

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29IUw50mWfY

http://www.MediaCircus.TV
Media Production Services
Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada

[Scott Sheriff]

Todd
“For what seems to be a growing number of non-discriminating clients, cheap-looking crap is what they are willing to settle for, and willing to pay for. Sadly.”

IMHO, clients accept “cheap looking crap”, because the consumers (viewers) do. Ad revenues, ratings and cash flow is down everywhere. In the case of commercials, every dollar used by the production, is a dollar that doesn’t go into the buy. The viewers don’t quit watching because of lower production values, so what is the incentive to spend? Look at YouTube. Most of the viral, most watched videos aren’t popular because of what camera they were shot with.
The other reason its ‘our’ fault is that for the quite a while, things that were once considered ‘production mistakes’ are now considered trendy FX, and favored ‘looks’. So when you shoot poorly framed, shaky-cam, and then post in a bunch of scratches, light leaks, and lens flares, your just conditioning the audience to accept lower quality, as ‘art’. So if that’s the look, why spend the money on the camera? To the guy writing the checks, it may seem that the only reason to use the (insert your favorite camera here) camera, is to stroke the DP’s ego.

Scott Sheriff
Director
SST Digital Media
https://www.sstdigitalmedia.com

[Mike Cohen]

I recently did a job for someone who proposed the job this way:

“I want to do a fun video for an internal event. What if we send Flip cams to our sales force and have them get some talking heads, and then you edit it together along with some interviews we do here.”

I replied:

“The Flip is a decent camera for birthday parties and really informal use. If we shoot some of the interviews, the Flip stuff will look bad in comparison. If you just go with the Flip video – the image quality is pretty good but the sound may be low quality, not to mention the hand held shakiness, when projected, might make people nauseous.”

He agreed with this feedback – notice I did not completely disregard the Flip because it is in fact good for some uses, and you want to give your clients some credit for their ideas.

So we wound up shooting all the interviews in HDV – only one without a tripod – and everyone is happy.

In the end, it would have been the same amount of editing however it was shot – although the Flip might have necessitated some stabilization and audio cleanup.

Actually, we recently did some editing of a surgical procedure shot with eithr a Flip, a point and shoot non-SLR still camera, or both. By the third case, the resident was getting good and had some creative shots.

There is a time and purpose for everything.

Mike Cohen

[Walter Soyka]

We’ve been through this before, and not all that long ago. I suspect that many of us who are now threatened by the current disruption were the beneficiaries of the last disruption.

In 1995, Sony introduced a Flip Cam — but they called it the VX1000. It arguably wasn’t as good as Betacam, but it wasn’t nearly as large, and it was cheaper.

In 1999, Apple introduced a Flip Editor — but they called it Final Cut Pro. It arguable wasn’t as good as Avid, but it didn’t require a qualified system, and it was cheaper.

When you mix technology and capitalism, you get better quality from smaller, cheaper, faster packages every time.

This thread is one of a series on this forum over the past couple weeks that I think all distill to the same idea: knowing your value proposition, and being able to communicate it to clients and prospects who would truly benefit from it.

If all the value you offer comes from the tools that you own, you had better be a rental shop or you’ll be out of business.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events

[Richard Herd]

[Mark Suszko] “cheap-ass look is going to stay popular”

Didn’t they say something similar about distorted guitar? I’m not old enough to have experienced the 60s. Anyway, now that sound is very expensive and spawned a whole new style of music and expression.

But it isn’t the instrument, it’s the artist.

[Richard Herd]

[Walter Soyka] “knowing your value proposition, and being able to communicate it to clients and prospects”

Value proposition, does it work from both ends? I’m currently struggling with this.

ME: here’s the video but the audio file I received is poor.
CLIENT: here’s the new audio
ME: here’s the 2nd video.
CLIENT: My bad, I gave you the wrong information.
ME: I can fix that but it’ll cost X I’ll do it for half.
CLIENT: Complain complain complain.

Please help me here with regard to the value proposition. My price is already a bit low.