I'll stick with the $80 a month Lightcraft jetset, this is crazy pricing. We recently did a full production with nuke and an FX3+Jetset and it totally worked, also with a post sub-pixel refined tracking workflow. For anyone actually considering this, send that budget my way and I'll do your whole production for you with a virtual scene and final compositing - lol!
Anyone doing commercial VP is waaayyyy past the initial sticker shock EVERY apsect of VP cost are. We invest in VP workflows because we already have the clients and a studio and are able to service them while justifying remaining costs with studio rentals. And we simply bill commercial clients accordingly. These numbers, for the solutions and speed the system offers, still allow for production markup while offering clients a value real production simply doesn't. Like anyone scoffing at the price of any gear, if you're not using it in the proper market, it's simply not sustainable. Not a dis - simply a sobering fact I came to terms with when evolving to VP in a commercial production studio.
@@hiscifiguy yeah fair enough. In high end production I think there's a ton of bloat though unnecessarily just because the client pays it. Ultimately it *should* come down to how can you get the end result in the most cost-effective way possible with the highest visual fidelity. A $5000 dollar FX3 can create images that a $100,000 Alexa can make in most scenarios, and you don't need the insane dynamic range for the vast majority of shots. Diminishing returns but way higher cost is my point - seems like something very few filmmakers care about because they aren't pocketing the costs most of the time. To me it seems like virtual production introduces some insane costs for a diminished return in many situations. It's also the reason directors who were previously VFX Supervisors are able to pull off films at a fraction of the cost - because they actually think about the cost and know how to cut corners strategically.
Joey great video, my comments are not regarding what you do. That being said Zeiss took something that was $20,000 and made it $43,600 PLUS added a software license that has to be renewed yearly (3 years for this pack pricing) for the hardware to work. They had a great opportunity to not try to compete with Mo-Sys and be a dominant player in the lower tier market and choose not to. Not sure people will be choosing Zeiss vs Mo-Sys just because of lens calibration data. Vive Mars Camtrack can do this in less than 15 minutes for $5,000. Disappointed.
Get our free newsletter with all things virtual production: ntm.link/vp_land
I'll stick with the $80 a month Lightcraft jetset, this is crazy pricing. We recently did a full production with nuke and an FX3+Jetset and it totally worked, also with a post sub-pixel refined tracking workflow. For anyone actually considering this, send that budget my way and I'll do your whole production for you with a virtual scene and final compositing - lol!
I audibly yelled 'oh my god' when I heard the affordable price :)
Anyone doing commercial VP is waaayyyy past the initial sticker shock EVERY apsect of VP cost are. We invest in VP workflows because we already have the clients and a studio and are able to service them while justifying remaining costs with studio rentals. And we simply bill commercial clients accordingly. These numbers, for the solutions and speed the system offers, still allow for production markup while offering clients a value real production simply doesn't. Like anyone scoffing at the price of any gear, if you're not using it in the proper market, it's simply not sustainable. Not a dis - simply a sobering fact I came to terms with when evolving to VP in a commercial production studio.
@@hiscifiguy yeah fair enough. In high end production I think there's a ton of bloat though unnecessarily just because the client pays it.
Ultimately it *should* come down to how can you get the end result in the most cost-effective way possible with the highest visual fidelity. A $5000 dollar FX3 can create images that a $100,000 Alexa can make in most scenarios, and you don't need the insane dynamic range for the vast majority of shots.
Diminishing returns but way higher cost is my point - seems like something very few filmmakers care about because they aren't pocketing the costs most of the time. To me it seems like virtual production introduces some insane costs for a diminished return in many situations.
It's also the reason directors who were previously VFX Supervisors are able to pull off films at a fraction of the cost - because they actually think about the cost and know how to cut corners strategically.
Joey great video, my comments are not regarding what you do. That being said Zeiss took something that was $20,000 and made it $43,600 PLUS added a software license that has to be renewed yearly (3 years for this pack pricing) for the hardware to work. They had a great opportunity to not try to compete with Mo-Sys and be a dominant player in the lower tier market and choose not to. Not sure people will be choosing Zeiss vs Mo-Sys just because of lens calibration data. Vive Mars Camtrack can do this in less than 15 minutes for $5,000. Disappointed.
3K a month is not a good idea. Well i guess those prices will come down in a short amount of time.
LOL @ the pricing - it will failed for sure