IBC footage...

[Simon Wyndham]

I'm going to wait for the first digital IMAX camera :D

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Looked at these (rather few) images on a fairly decent-looking LCD display. They're subjectively fine, although it was quite carefully lit - the reflection on the front of the car would probably just graze 98% zebras. They are noticeably low in noise.

 

And I second Mr. Most's comments. The objection is not to what's being done, it's to the attitude with which it's being done. Extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence, etc. And yes, mistakes like having one of your reps claim a 15-stop highlght is holding detail is a mistake you need to avoid.

 

Phil

[Tomas Koolhaas]

Hi,

I think it's a crying shame that Jim feels he can no longer engage in this forum because of the confrontational approach of many of the people that posted here:

-Firstly if you only ever want to shoot film, dont comment to Jim About his camera, whats the point, youre just trying to rub his nose in your monocromatic view on Film Vs. Video (thats like calling the pope to tell him you dont believe in religion at all and never will).

-Secondly some of you are just attacking him for the sake of it, the same poeple who slag-off all the big companies and their cameras (Sony F900 etc..) are now attacking Jim when he takes a risk and tries not only to rival them for cheaper but surpass them!!! How could you possibly be annoyed by that.

-Phil you are a VERY clued-up guy who always teaches me something new with his posts, you are always sticking-up for video when compared to film, and I remember you saying that HD w/35 DOF (using the Pro35) looks good but the adaptor is annoying/unpraticle, so why wouldn't you be happy about this camera? it has 35 DOF and takes PL mount lenses without any adaprtor/softening/spinning groundglass (what could be better?).

 

It just seems to me that many of the people who SHOULD be the happiest about this camera (Even if it doesn't live up to it's FULL potential it will still probably be better than the Varicam or even F900) are the ones criticizing it the most!! Give it a chance, wait till you see the test footage yourself. If you are sceptical fine, dont order one, but I think the vitriol against Jim and his (still unbuilt) camera is misplaced and misguided, and has now resulted in Jim leaving the forum, and people who could have made constructive suggestions (instead of badgering insinuations) about the Cam's development, now wont get the chance.

A real fu**ing waste if you ask me.

Edited September 11, 2006 by Tomas Koolhaas

[Tomas Koolhaas]

I just wanted to add one thing to my last post:

Phil,

I understand you are annoyed by the excesive claims, but what do you expect, what product would ever sell one unit if it wasn't hyped properly and even hyperbolically. I can't see them saying "Yeah the Cam's OK we have a lot of things to work out still, but here...buy one for nearly 20G's" it wouldn't move a unit, no-one does business like that, it's simple economics! any people who believe any claims now and buy one, and then find out the claims to be untrue only have themselves to blame for buying a product solely on hype and speculation, I (and you, I pressume) would never buy a camera I hadn't used on a shoot at least once myself!!! so just ignore the speculation and withhold judgement until you see footage yourself on a 4k projector.

Cheers.

Edited September 12, 2006 by Tomas Koolhaas

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I'm not a person who would never consider using a video camera. I just think it is foolish for REDs site to tell people to quit shooting on 35mm now. The camera isn't even built yet and I'm supposed to put my life on hold and shaft film until Jim feels like releasing his super camera. That is a ridiculous notion and, quite frankly, a stupid marketing line. Maybe if the camera was available for sale now it might be ok, but comeon man.

 

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this camera is any better of a value than shooting on S16. S16 is easily 2k and the price is considerably cheaper than this camera with a decent lense. The camera + the $10k lense + hard drive = almost 30k. For that, I could shoot 16mm for days. The quality difference between s16 and RED would not be worth the extra money and workflow hassle IMHO.

[Dan Goulder]

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.

Did you say, "Large refrigerator sized drive array"? REFRIGERATOR SIZED? That might tend to undermine the whole "run and gun" concept, to put it mildly.

[Jim Jannard]

That is why we have developed REDCODE RAW.

[Clint Johnson]

For years to come there will be people who continue to use film simply because it is film. They don?t see digital as art and there will be no way to change that worldview... just like there are a lot of people who look down their nose at film and refuse to see it as art.

 

If you didn?t create it on gesso prepared birch using pigment you ground yourself ... well then it just isn?t art and you mister cameraman, are a hack manufacturer of mechanical facsimiles.

 

Really Richard, that is how it sounds on the receiving end of your speeches. Next you?ll be saying that the only way you?ll work on it is if you develop the film yourself and cut it on a Moviola.

 

And I can?t fathom thinking that shooting in film has fewer workflow hassles than digital acquisition? With digital I can capture the footage, transfer it from the capture media to the working media, convert it to my preferred editing codec and have it on a timeline in my NLE in a matter of minutes while you sit there with a can of exposed film.

 

I?ve only used S16 once and 8mm a couple times and if I never do again I will be ecstatic.

 

The only reason to use film has been the edge in quality... but we are currently nearing the point where the quality of a digital image will cross the lethargic advancements made with film. Looking at the precedent set by the last ten years, a decade from now film will have made tiny little incremental improvements while digital will have doubled its subjective quality two or three times.

 

Red might not be the camera that passes film by but sometime in the next year or two the quality of digital acquisition will surpass film and we can be quit of the noise, mess and mechanical limitations placed on us by needing to drag a strip of celluloid laced with chemicals past a rotating shutter, sending the film for development and then transfer the film to something that we can actually do something with.

 

Film is ALL hassle with only the image quality to offset that and thankfully we are going to see this one singular advantage fall by the wayside.

[Daniel Stigler]

Film is ALL hassle with only the image quality to offset that and thankfully we are going to see this one singular advantage fall by the wayside.

 

 

Maybe i'm retarded but i can't remember one single video shooting that wasn't a MAJOR hassle for me.

Also i did a lot of commercial jobs this year that went perfectly smooth using a 435 that would have killed a dozen of F900s, would have taken twice as long using video and wouldn't have been half as much fun. Not to speak of image quality...

[Tomas Koolhaas]

I'm not a person who would never consider using a video camera. I just think it is foolish for REDs site to tell people to quit shooting on 35mm now. The camera isn't even built yet and I'm supposed to put my life on hold and shaft film until Jim feels like releasing his super camera. That is a ridiculous notion and, quite frankly, a stupid marketing line. Maybe if the camera was available for sale now it might be ok, but comeon man.

 

Also, I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this camera is any better of a value than shooting on S16. S16 is easily 2k and the price is considerably cheaper than this camera with a decent lense. The camera + the $10k lense + hard drive = almost 30k. For that, I could shoot 16mm for days. The quality difference between s16 and RED would not be worth the extra money and workflow hassle IMHO.

 

Hi,

Matthew, I wasn't reffering to you, I was refering to R.Bodington's post "I will never ever shoot video but..."

No you aren't supposed to "put your life on hold" thats ludicrous, do you usually make large decisions based on the claims of advertisers?? do woman watch tampon adverts and then go and book a white-water rafting holiday or salsa classes because they saw it on the Ad?...No! I think it's wierd that people would get so annoyed about someone hyping their own product, what would you have them say "RED is good but film is still much better" on the website???? thats not gonna happen mate. You are getting way to wrapped up in whats being said about the RED, they owe you nothing, they dont owe you a humble advertising campaign and they dont owe you a super-camera, just relax, dont take advertising so literaly, and be happy if and when RED make a good camera you can use which is better/cheaper than it's rivals, if they dont....you haven't lost anything have you, just keep shooting S16. And please dont get this into a comparison between S16 and RED, I own an S16 Cam. but if RED turns out good, I will use that too sometimes (depends on the needs of the project) but that doesn't mean I'm gonna sell my Aaton anytime soon, they are different, each has its own advantages and disadvantages.

Cheers.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

First, this blablabla around film vs. digital in THIS thread is simply useless.

 

Aside the marketing issue (coming from any mass strategy may have affordable S35mm as a chance), a prior negative feedback can just have a negative interpretation. Hidden stuff yes but directly to the other side. Who is thinking the suspicions are running to the usual side here, is better to self-prepare to the delusion. I'd say the sorcery will become against the sorcerer.

[Tomas Koolhaas]

First, this blablabla around film vs. digital in THIS thread is simply useless.

 

Aside the marketing issue (coming from any mass strategy may have affordable S35mm as a chance), a prior negative feedback can just have a negative interpretation. Hidden stuff yes but directly to the other side. Who is thinking the suspicions are running to the usual side here, is better to self-prepare to the delusion. I'd say the sorcery will become against the sorcerer.

 

Hi,

I really dont mean to be a dick but I personally didnt understand any of the second part of this...it sounded interesting though, I agree with the first part film vs digital is a useless argument anywhere anytime.

Cheers.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Jim is doing his work. And if there is who is believing (almost 500 buyers by now) it isn't by luck.

[Clint Johnson]

Maybe i'm retarded but i can't remember one single video shooting that wasn't a MAJOR hassle for me.

Also i did a lot of commercial jobs this year that went perfectly smooth using a 435 that would have killed a dozen of F900s, would have taken twice as long using video and wouldn't have been half as much fun. Not to speak of image quality...

 

No, I wouldn?t be so rude as to call you retarded but could you imagine the outcry that would ensue if someone tried to bring out a digital camera that had the exact same workflow as a film camera?

 

What recording media do we use at Purple?

 

Well it is the PurpleCan and it stores eleven minutes of footage at 24 fps in a rather large hard drive of about 30cm by 3cm that will never get a better data density and uh... you can only use once so you have to buy a whole pile of PurpleCans for your shoot. And you have to load them in the dark because any light will ruin some of the data... but you won?t know that until it gets back from the facility that has to run the PurpleCan through a messy and toxic process before you can look at it. And this mandatory step of processing the PurpleCan will cost extra as well as taking a couple days... but you can pay us more to get a rush overnight service. And once we?ve processed your PurpleCan we?ll have to charge you more to copy the data over to an industry standard hard drive that you will be able to actually edit.

 

Maybe this would make you feel more at home with the Purple One but I?d be moving on to a different camera myself.

 

My last outing with video was a 12 day shoot where we got 90 pages done and the only problem that I had were with the time codes not being laid down properly on a few tapes and two scenes where the colour on A camera and B camera was further apart than I would have liked.

 

I suppose it comes down to what feels natural to you and what you are used to. Some see a romance in the physicality of film where I only see layers of inconvenience. The nice thing about a market economy is that we will both get to keep using the workflow that we find more comfortable.

[Max Jacoby]

Hi,

I really dont mean to be a dick but I personally didnt understand any of the second part of this...

One now defunct member of this board thought that good old Emmanuel here uses a programm to translate his native tongue into English before posting. The very elaborate vocabulary that he uses together with the non-sensical construction of most of his sentences certainly leads me to suspect that this is really the case.

[Daniel Stigler]

No, I wouldn?t be so rude as to call you retarded but could you imagine the outcry that would ensue if someone tried to bring out a digital camera that had the exact same workflow as a film camera?

 

What recording media do we use at Purple?

 

Well it is the PurpleCan and it stores eleven minutes of footage at 24 fps in a rather large hard drive of about 30cm by 3cm that will never get a better data density and uh... you can only use once so you have to buy a whole pile of PurpleCans for your shoot. And you have to load them in the dark because any light will ruin some of the data... but you won?t know that until it gets back from the facility that has to run the PurpleCan through a messy and toxic process before you can look at it. And this mandatory step of processing the PurpleCan will cost extra as well as taking a couple days... but you can pay us more to get a rush overnight service. And once we?ve processed your PurpleCan we?ll have to charge you more to copy the data over to an industry standard hard drive that you will be able to actually edit.

 

Maybe this would make you feel more at home with the Purple One but I?d be moving on to a different camera myself.

 

My last outing with video was a 12 day shoot where we got 90 pages done and the only problem that I had were with the time codes not being laid down properly on a few tapes and two scenes where the colour on A camera and B camera was further apart than I would have liked.

 

I suppose it comes down to what feels natural to you and what you are used to. Some see a romance in the physicality of film where I only see layers of inconvenience. The nice thing about a market economy is that we will both get to keep using the workflow that we find more comfortable.

 

Most of what you wrote makes sense to me, but the only alternative (in the segment of moving picture capturing that i earn my living) is recording data to a RAID system and handling them which from my experience so far is more expensive and a lot more trouble than shooting rolls of film. Combined with lower mechanical quality and lower versatility of the digital cameras.

But like i wrote, in the segment i work in. For sure there are a lot of kinds of shootings where using film would just be stupid.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

One now defunct member of this board thought that good old Emmanuel here uses a programm to translate his native tongue into English before posting. The very elaborate vocabulary that he uses together with the non-sensical construction of most of his sentences certainly leads me to suspect that this is really the case.

Good old Maxx,

 

This now defunct member has a name: Jim Murdoch. And if you are thinking that "very elaborate vocabulary" (your words not mine) are coming from the babel...go ahead!...it's your problem, not mine.

 

Emanuel

[John Holland]

Must have missed out somewhere ,what happened to Jim Murdoch ?? . John Holland , London.

[Hal Smith]

One now defunct member of this board thought that good old Emmanuel here uses a programm to translate his native tongue into English before posting. The very elaborate vocabulary that he uses together with the non-sensical construction of most of his sentences certainly leads me to suspect that this is really the case.

I have no idea what Emanuel's native language is but I have no problem understanding him. He writes a lot like Arabic speakers do in English, very "flowerly" constructions that I find quite poetic.

 

And I'll guarantee his English is infinitely better than how I speak and/or write his native tongue, whatever it is. This sort of language bashing shows up on the Forum all the time - and always p*ss*s me off because my belief is it takes a lot of guts to publicly write anything in a language not your own.

[Stephen Williams]

Must have missed out somewhere ,what happened to Jim Murdoch ?? . John Holland , London.

 

John,

 

He got banned! I have to admit that I found many of his posts quite funny.

 

Stephen

[John Holland]

Why ???. thought he was hoot . John Holland .

[Stephen Williams]

Why ???. thought he was hoot . John Holland .

 

John,

 

He threatened JJ! Tim Taylor asked Jim Murdoch to contact him before he could post again. You can still read his thoughts on CML!

 

Stephen

[Jim Jannard]

Must have missed out somewhere ,what happened to Jim Murdoch ?? . John Holland , London.

 

The real Jim Murdoch in Scotland (with picture shown) never posted on this website. His identity was stolen and used by another person who didn't have the courage to post as himself.

 

Jim

[Keith Mottram]

Is there anyway Jim (Murdoch) can get pardoned? I thought Jim was a far more interesting contributer than many on here and although controversial there was at least something resembling a brain behind his posts... Can we have our own Howling Mad Murdoch back? Tim what needs to happen? The Scottish under dog has to be given a fighting chance against the corporate bohemouth that is Mr. Jannard. Or did it go beyond sticks and stones?

 

Oh and as I'm someone who has knocked Red in the past I want to say publically well done on reaching stage 1 Red team. I really mean that. Personally, looking at the pics of the camera I'd love to see a body or casing that looks a little less 'masculine'- it does look a little scary... any chance of a 'retro' case- like an XTR body!

 

POSTED PRIOR TO JJ's POST

 

The real Jim Murdoch in Scotland (with picture shown) never posted on this website. His identity was stolen and used by another person who didn't have the courage to post as himself.

 

Jim

 

You serious? Then this lends us another question "will the real Jim Murdoch please stand up"? Who was this identity thief was he even scottish and philosophically if we knew him as Jim Murdoch to us is he actually therefor the real Murdoch and the actual Jim Murdoch merely someone else with a face and name that matches our Jim Murdoch?.......

 

keith

Edited September 12, 2006 by Keith Mottram

[Emanuel A Guedes]

The real Jim Murdoch in Scotland (with picture shown) never posted on this website. His identity was stolen and used by another person who didn't have the courage to post as himself.

 

Jim

? The painter?

 

http://www.jimart.co.uk/

 

Isn't he the poster? I'm astonished!!

 

If there are a lot of Jim Murdochs in the world or the possibility of the use of a pseudonym or even a nick, it cannot be acceptable there! If it will be the case, assuming as his/her own identity the photo of someone that didn't give his permission to that, it configures a serious matter of law and police.

 

Sad.