Premium Member Keith Walters Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 You don't want to see the camera that took the images. It was a quickly assembled frankenstein machine, with a large refrigerator sized drive array to record the uncompressed nearly 5k images. But why do you think we wouldn't? This is not a autopsy of a 3-month-dead murder victim we're talking about here, just a collection of electronic parts. After all, you are dealing with an industry that lives and dies on the makeshift, on the "she'll-be-right-if-it's not-in-shot" philosophy, the industry that invented gaffer tape, dulling spray and people standing round holding bits of cardboard to flag off highlights. What you have probably looks little different to what we've seen on the sets of a dozen mad scientist flicks. I presume it mostly works on 5 Volts, 12 at the most, so there is no electrical hazard. Or is the problem that you can't actually show realtime live images yet? If that's the issue I don't know why it would such a big deal, after all you don't get to see movie film straight away either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 I guess it is being suggested that our footage looks too good to be real? Thank you so much. Jim, IMHO 3d looking footage is not a compliment! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 The compliments we have received from everyone who has actually seen the footage and then placed reservations is more then enough offset than a few "tweaks" we hear here from those who have not seen the footage. But the inference that the footage has been faked is not well received. It is not necessary for us to show you our breadbox to convince you the footage is real. Our job is to finish the camera on time and deliver to reservation holders more than they have bet on. Our time will now be spent to that end. If there are some who cling to some conspiracy theory, they will do it without further response. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) quote name='Jim Jannard' post='126576' date='Sep 11 2006, 10:44 PM'] It is not necessary for us to show you our breadbox to convince you the footage is real. Jim I think you mean "Breadboard" and no, it's not necessary for you to put it on display to convince some, or I daresay, most of the posters here. However, if you did put on some sort of actual hardware display it would go a long way toward removing any lingering doubts. I still don't understand why you're reluctant to show us even a photo of it. I mean, to play the Devil's Advocate, when you get right down to it we really have nothing but your word that the images came from your prototype, and not say, a D-20 you hired for a couple of days. In another post you challenged us to explain why you would put pixel dropouts and other defects into a computer-generated image. No disrespect, but I'd have to say that is EXACTLY what I would do if I was trying to pull such a scam! Not that I'm suggesting you are, but that is how less generous-spirited people might think. Edited September 11, 2006 by Keith Walters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 As I mentioned in a previous post, if this were a scam, it would include Otto Nemitz, Assimilate, Quvis and would put my reputation at risk... not exactly sure what would be gained. Thank you for correcting my terminology... my frustration is running well ahead of my typing. Jim quote name='Jim Jannard' post='126576' date='Sep 11 2006, 10:44 PM'] No disrespect, but I'd have to say that is EXACTLY what I would do if I was trying to pull such a scam! I guess the question begs to be asked, is this something you would ever really consider doing? Or do you actually know anyone that would ever consider such a thing? I don't. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 As I mentioned in a previous post, if this were a scam, it would include Otto Nemitz, Assimilate, Quvis and would put my reputation at risk... not exactly sure what would be gained.Jim Ignore the nay-sayers. I suspect half of them are people who can't deal with the fact that you're working on a camera that has the potential to put 35mm film in its grave. I'm not happy about that personally but new technology always obsoletes something. For those of us unable to make it to a live demo, are there any full resolution still capture images from RED posted anywhere? I know your camera can take motion pictures so for me to get a look at a TIFF, etc. would be helpful in getting a feel for how RED's performing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 We scrambled to make IBC (just did beat the deadline) and we will post both footage (1k or 2k H.264) and stills (debayered from RAW) as soon as we get back to the office end of the week or 1st of next. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Do you mean Otto Nemenz ? as in the big arri man in Hollywood . John Holland ,London . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Again, my fingers are trailing my brian. Yes, Otto Nemenz. They have the maximum number (5) reserved. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Again, my fingers are trailing my brian. Yes, Otto Nemenz. They have the maximum number (5) reserved. Jim Looks that way your brian ? John Holland . London. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) hehe... xactly. My brian is two steps behind and one left of my brain. Jim Edited September 11, 2006 by Jim Jannard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Most Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 And David Stump, head of ASC, is in on the hoax? The head of the ASC at the moment is Daryn Okada. Dave is head of the ASC Technology Committee. Jim, I have a great deal of respect for what you seem to be accomplishing, but you really need to be more accurate in some of your posts, especially when you're talking to professionals. What may seem like a simple slip of the fingers or tongue to you often comes across as unnecessary hubris to many here and elsewhere, especially when it starts to involve what some might interpret as name dropping. Whether it's in your nature or not, such things sometimes comes across as arrogance. I know you're proud of what you're doing, but it might help to drop the defensive posturing and let the product speak for itself sometimes. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Michael... your point is well taken. You are correct about Dave. My error. I have been posting a bit too much and not checking what I am writing well enough. It is not in my nature to be defensive. But I have never been accused of fraud before (in 30 years of business) and I didn't like it. I have been warned many times not to engage in these forums. I thought that keeping a dialog with the industry would be a good thing. We have received many useful suggestions by the interaction. I think that it is healthy for me to stop the posting now because it has been more frustrating than informative lately. And our footage does speak for itself. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Otaviano Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 But I have never been accused of fraud before (in 30 years of business) and I didn't like it. I don't know if you are referring to what I wrote but just to get this cleared up, I wasn't accusing you of fraud. Just said it looks like cgi. I'm not saying it is cgi, just that it looks like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Lowry Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I think it's absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable to expect Jim to publish a photo of the preprototype "breadboard" camera. What other camera company does that? And even if he did, what would it prove? If you don't believe the footage, why would such a photo be convincing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 I think it's absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable to expect Jim to publish a photo of the preprototype "breadboard" camera. What other camera company does that? And even if he did, what would it prove? If you don't believe the footage, why would such a photo be convincing? Hi Greg, A 'making of' video would be cool! Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Workman Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 When I suggested that the still looked like a CGI image, it wasn't an attack or praise. It was more of an observation. I don't doubt/believe RED's capabilities because it's still in prototype. I will probably buy a RED with a PL Mount when it comes out. But for whatever reason I think that particular still looks like a render. Go ahead and tear this post apart. The first image here is also an HDRI render. Not the best one I've seen but you get my point. Matt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Stigler Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I think it's absolutely ridiculous and unreasonable to expect Jim to publish a photo of the preprototype "breadboard" camera. What other camera company does that? ARRI for example does now and then. But only after the new camera is introduced and they are introduced as soon as they are ready to shoot. And not right after the idea is sparked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 A lot of speculation here about the Red demo shots that most on this list are keen to see. Even more speculation when a few frame grabs are posted! Jim, you've had your warning, wait until they see the moving picture! Mike Brennan (saw the demo) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brennan Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 When I suggested that the still looked like a CGI image, it wasn't an attack or praise. It was more of an observation. I don't doubt/believe RED's capabilities because it's still in prototype. I will probably buy a RED with a PL Mount when it comes out. But for whatever reason I think that particular still looks like a render. Go ahead and tear this post apart. The first image here is also an HDRI render. Not the best one I've seen but you get my point. Matt Matt, it doesnt look like CGI when it moves it looks like a very nice and very real watch. The first thing that engauged me was....is is this real? I was looking for noise or moving texture or fixed parttern noise. There was little that I could see in the two viewings. Shot of sunglasses had a spec of dust on them that wasn't visible with the naked eye during the shoot. Reminds me of my first shoot on HD where the client, glued to a 24 inch HD crt kept pointing out specs of dust on his shiny product, that we couldn't see with the naked eye, except from directly behind the lens. The live action bubble gum girls (you had to be there!) didn't look like a render either. It is early days yet, but one issue fans of 35mm depth of field may have to factor when shooting is that 4k digital and 4k projection decreases the apparent depth of field. It is beginning to bother me when I see the nose and ears are soft in a medium closeup. Mike Brennan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Lowry Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 (edited) It is early days yet, but one issue fans of 35mm depth of field may have to factor when shooting is that 4k digital and 4k projection decreases the apparent depth of field. It is beginning to bother me when I see the nose and ears are soft in a medium closeup. Mike Brennan Some have commented that the DOF from 35mm-sized sensors is shallower than for 35mm film cameras. Sort of like the DOF challenges of shooting closeups in 65mm. I think the answer to this is ultimately going to be faster sensors so we can stop down a little where necessary. Edited September 11, 2006 by Greg Lowry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Lowry Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Hi Greg, A 'making of' video would be cool! Stephen Hi Stephen, Yes, hopefully RED is documenting their adventure. Regards, Greg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 I think the answer to this is ultimately going to be faster sensors so we can stop down a little where necessary. Hi, Or smaller sensors! LOL Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Hal Smith Posted September 11, 2006 Premium Member Share Posted September 11, 2006 Note the reflection of the camera and lens right where it should be on the watch's bezel. I can't see any support but the camera could be boomed off some sort of stand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Lowry Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Hi, Or smaller sensors! LOL Stephen Don't we already have those? haha. We're never happy, are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now