RED production schedule

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> including inferring that we staged the break-in at the RED offices (quite an illegal activity BTW) and faking our

> footage.

 

Hey, hang on a second here - I've closely questioned you, but I didn't do either of those things - you're thinking of someone else. It certainly was said, but equally certainly not by me.

 

Phil

[David Mullen ASC]

Hi,

 

> including inferring that we staged the break-in at the RED offices (quite an illegal activity BTW) and faking our

> footage.

 

Hey, hang on a second here - I've closely questioned you, but I didn't do either of those things - you're thinking of someone else. It certainly was said, but equally certainly not by me.

 

Phil

 

It wasn't Phil, it was someone else here. I don't remember who.

[Jim Jannard]

My apologies, Mr. Rhodes, for not remembering which times it was you and which times it was someone else. It is hard to keep track.

 

Jim

[Phil Rhodes]

Yeah, we all look alike, eh?

 

-P

[Ken Cangi]

My apologies, Mr. Rhodes, for not remembering which times it was you and which times it was someone else. It is hard to keep track.

 

Jim

 

With all due consideration, Mr. Jannard, you publicly made a false accusation about a member of this board. Your apology was not only disingenuous, but clearly condescending. I can't help thinking that this might be a preview of how you will treat customers when they come to you with warranty issues, etc. Your comment was out of line and very unprofessional.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Ken Cangi

[Jim Jannard]

With all due consideration, Mr. Jannard, you publicly made a false accusation about a member of this board. Your apology was not only disingenuous, but clearly condescending. I can't help thinking that this might be a preview of how you will treat customers when they come to you with warranty issues, etc. Your comment was out of line and very unprofessional.

 

Ken... with all due respect, I am tired of sparring with members on this board. And my accusation is not false. Mr. Rhodes has been disrespectful from day one, both on the board and in PM's. The example I stated was incorrect. But the accusation is not.

 

You are correct, however, I do find myself stooping to a level of frustration that is bringing out the worst in my behavior. It is the reason I stopped trying here 4 months ago and the reason I will permanently leave now. You sound like a nice guy. For fun, when you have time, read some posts from the beginning of this RED forum. It makes for interesting reading.

 

As for the leap from less than elegant posts to how we will deal with warrany issues, I'm not quite sure how you did that. Oakley has been an example of customer service for 31 years. No matter. This is obviously not a place for me.

 

My best to you all.

 

Jim

[Mitch Gross]

Hey, I have a great idea. Let's all just stop. Now.

 

Phil brought up a question of definition (that is, in defining a term, not just in defining resolution) that has been around for a long time. It's just that he brought it up in his usual, well Phil way. I'm not going to defend it; I'm just noting it. I'm sure Jim has never had reason to read any other comments from Phil on any other subject over the years, otherwise he would have seen that Phil is always this way. Again, good or bad I'm just identifying it.

 

RED has essentially delivered on every promise of schedule it has ever made. There may be a few quibbles here & there but they have done what can only be described as a stunning amount of superior work in an incredibly short time.

 

I was an early critic both because I found their marketing off-putting to my sensibilities and because I found it hard to believe that they could deliver in the time frame they put out. Well, marketing is a matter of taste and they're on schedule, which was the original point of this thread.

 

While RED has hinted that they may have an open hands-on showing of their technology sometime soon, the big date has always essentially been NAB 2007. So we can all keep quiet until mid-April and see what appears next to the Apple booth in Vegas. I just hope it isn't a barker in front of a tent again, but that's just me. I'm still planning on bringing a hat-shaped cake to share with Jim on his success yo make good on a promise from more than a year ago on the CML. (Maybe I should find that old email--did I really say I would eat it?)

[Carl Brighton]

Hey, I have a great idea. Let's all just stop. Now.

If nothing else, until some of you learn the difference between "infer" and "imply"! :rolleyes:

 

I'm still planning on bringing a hat-shaped cake to share with Jim on his success yo make good on a promise from more than a year ago on the CML. (Maybe I should find that old email--did I really say I would eat it?)

Perhaps that should be a Red Velvet Cake!

But will they let it past security? Maybe if you give them a slice.

I once made a 14.14 inch square black forest gateau for an Arri Rep; gawd, I'll never do that again.

(Note: Apply cream, cherries and chocolate after you get to location!)

 

(And who can tell me why it's 14.14 inches square?)

[Alessandro Machi]

This is the last time I will allow Mr. Rhodes to infer that we are "lying" about anything. Or that we owe any explanation to Mr. Rhodes about any topic. My suggestion, Graeme, it that we all spend our time in a more productive forum.

 

Jim

 

Thats really an insulting statement to make, towards Mr. Mullen, after he has already quite capably defended your position.

[Walter Graff]

"I appreciate that Phil points out the drawbacks of Bayer reconstruction, because it offers an alternative view to what Red is saying." etc, etc

 

This is not directed at anyone here, but at the entire thread and the disturbing trend I see that is like a virus invading most every web site out there, and now killing this one too. That is a trend towards technology and the false hope it brings.

 

It's sad that people take things so personally, especially considering the camera in question doesn't even exist. Technology has gotten many of us to forget about the art of filmmaking only to concentrate on tools. Tools are great but no tool build the pyramids. No tool built the great Wall of China. And if you took AFI's 100 greatest films of all time and saw what 1100 pound steel boxes made those epics, you'd humble yourselves to realize that no tool will ever make a great movie, nor will it make you a great filmmaker.

 

While the reality is there is no holy grail of cameras, we have so gotten into pushing matches over everything but the art of filmmaking that perhaps it is a good reflection of why filmmaking as a whole is in such a bad way right now. For the most part this is probably one of the most professional boards out there but to hear folks screaming over a $10k camera and wanting a $200k result makes me wonder where it all went wrong. actually to see pagees and pages of threads based on gossip and supposistion is disturbing. I know it has a lot to do with the new push in marketing that is convincing many that it is the tool that makes the diference. It's also the avalability of equipment that years ago was only available to proffesionals and now offers some glimmer of hope that anyone can be a filmmaker.

 

I watched The Rolling Stones Circus tonight. An amazing marketing video made in 1968. It featured the Stones along with the likes of Lennon, Clapton, The Who and a bunch of other cream of the crop performers all at the peak of their careers in terms of creativity and what they produced. No they didn't have anything more than four and five piece drums. No keyboards connected to computers. Simple cardiod mics. Four track 1/4 inch recorders for sound. No crazy silicon based foot petals that make even a lousy guitarist sound good, nor electronic devices like pitch perfect that are used today on most every vocal on every album you hear. A device that makes everyone sound great. No this film had simply talented musicians who showed that with a six string guitar and talent, the tool wasn't what made you good at what you did, rather it was just something that helped you get there. And the funny thing was this was a film designed as a marketing tool but long before most schools even had majors for marketing, and long before the public was ignorant enough to follow whatever shampoo they were told was good, or what camera they were convinced would make them a filmmaker.

 

As I see it today in most every artistic industry we are not forging new creative ideas, rather rehashing the past because it's safe and a sure bet. And we are turning from art to technology because somehow we really think that it's going to make a difference. Tell that to the folks who made what are still considered the greatest films of all times. Films made some fifty years ago with what we would consider bear skins and stone knives by today's technological standard. Yet we can't imitate their enduring quality even with a 12k sensor. Rather this is a world where text messaging replaced communication and people live more isolated lives due to technology. Perhaps that is why suddenly everyone wants to be a filmmaker so they can express the pent up anger that lives in them.

 

Today I saw more people toting HD ready TV sets everywhere I went in NY than cell phones. It looked like the looting that went on in Harlem and Brooklyn after the great blackout in the 1960's in NY. All these people believed a promise made to them by an industry set on selling TV sets. And they took the bait. 99% of these people will simply hook this sets up to their regular cable and will think they have HDTV. But that is okay, it was marketing that made them spend between $1500 and $5000, not common sense. It's sad to see how the same virus has infiltrated the industry I work in.

 

Do you really think Red is going to change anything? Of course the people who make it do. I wouldn't expect anything else. But I say let them make it first before all the theories and internet researched replies lead many down roads of ignorance and embarrassment. It's just a camera, a camera that is nothing more than block of wood and a glossy picture on a website as of now. Let's see what they offer when they do. It could be great or could be another backfiring of a product due less with the product and more in the mistakes in marketing that convinced the world that they were getting something they felt they didn't. But we can't guess until it exists. And we can talk all we want about technology and what it could mean for such a camera but why not wait till you can actually get one in your hands first.

 

No it's not anyone fault. It's marketing. Marketing has replaced common sense. It promises dreams and creates hope that we somehow believe will make our existence okay, but as I stand back all I can ask is hope for what? Filmmaking is now some strange form of emotional therapy that somehow gives folks the false hope that someone will pay attention to them. And if they have a camera that fits some imaginary standard of professionalism, their lives will be validated.

[Ken Cangi]

As for the leap from less than elegant posts to how we will deal with warrany issues, I'm not quite sure how you did that. Oakley has been an example of customer service for 31 years. No matter. This is obviously not a place for me.

 

It was a leap, Jim. My apologies for the exaggeration. It was my oblique way of trying to steer this debate back into a constructive direction. As I said before, I look forward to the unveiling of a successful product, as it would benefit the entire industry. Best of luck with your project.

[Daniel Sheehy]

We get productive suggestions on other boards...

You know, I've had a look around on a few of those other boards, and I haven't found a single one which hasn't fallen into the "For or Against" trap.

 

Infact I think it was on the reduser board that I read the rather interesting suggestion that certain 'haters' should not be allowed to buy the red camera once it makes distribution.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

...and I've never spoken to Mr. Jannard by private message, either.

 

Good grief, Snoopy.

 

Phil

[Carl Brighton]

No it's not anyone fault. It's marketing. Marketing has replaced common sense. It promises dreams and creates hope that we somehow believe will make our existence okay, but as I stand back all I can ask is hope for what? Filmmaking is now some strange form of emotional therapy that somehow gives folks the false hope that someone will pay attention to them. And if they have a camera that fits some imaginary standard of professionalism, their lives will be validated.

Pathetic, isn't it? You look at the credits for the average feature film, and they go on for several minutes. Even for fairly ho-hum features. Every one of those people does something, and with very few exceptions, if they don't do it properly, it shows, and the producer is stuck with it, unless he or she wants to go to the expense of a re-shoot.

 

Do these would-be"filmmakers" actually imagine that some form of electronic camera is going to do away with the need for those hordes of people?

 

It's both hilarious and tragic to look at the amount of editing and re-editing the "digital cinematography" page of the Wikipedia has undergone, as hordes of amateurs try to re-classify themselves as "cinematographers".

 

Who was it who said: "If yearning was talent, my charlady would be opening at the Albert Hall!"

[Guest]

What happened to:

 

I'm putting an end to this never ending argument.

 

From now on this forum will not allow the touting of cameras that cannot be publicly tested.

 

 

--------------------

Tim Tyler

Forum Admin

[Stephen Williams]

What happened to:

 

I'm putting an end to this never ending argument.

 

From now on this forum will not allow the touting of cameras that cannot be publicly tested.

--------------------

Tim Tyler

Forum Admin

 

Hi Richard,

 

Well I think Graeme Nattress has made some useful posts here recently. Hopefully Red will give Geoff Boyle a camera for testing on 10 February (John Holland will be present), then we can talk more about Red.

 

Stephen

[Carl Brighton]

Hi Richard,

 

Well I think Graeme Nattress has made some useful posts here recently.

Stephen

Eh? I've just read the entire thread from start to finish, and Nattress doesn't really say anything, except to more or less reinforce the notion that he/they have better algorithms than anything ever seen before.

 

Apart from learning that Jim Jannard doesn't cope well with disrespect, (who does) we really aren't much the wiser about anything.

 

Nobody has answered the question about what they mean by:

 

"Captured by MYSTERIUM? at 5k, downrezzed to 4k, and compressed down to 1k. Shot without a low pass filter."

 

I presume they mean optical low-pass filter.

 

It would seem to me that if you "downrezzed" and compressed a 5K image to 1K, well yeah, you could successfully shoot without the LPF. But what would that achieve? Instead of the 5K image shrink down to 1K, it would be interesting to simply see a 1K chunk of the original "5K" file sans LPF.

 

Hopefully Red will give Geoff Boyle a camera for testing on 10 February (John Holland will be present), then we can talk more about Red.

 

The first independent testing will be taking place just six weeks before the RED is projected to start shipping? I wish I had that level of confidence :blink:

 

When will we see the first RED-captured feature in a cinema; that's the real question.

 

Still, I see they've at least got a nice range of stickers for sale, with prices to suit all budgets :)

[Eirik Tyrihjel]

What happened to:

 

I'm putting an end to this never ending argument.

 

From now on this forum will not allow the touting of cameras that cannot be publicly tested.

--------------------

Tim Tyler

Forum Admin

 

Agreed, let´s rest the discussion until RED starts shipping, or at least someone has their hands on it! For anyone else wanting to learn more (or argue more) use google and you will find where it´s at!

 

This endless bickering gets noone nowhere... (FAST!)

[Guest]

"When will we see the first RED-captured feature in a cinema; that's the real question."

 

This is my primary question, what happens when Red footage is put back to 35mm and projected?

 

Has it been done yet?

 

This will decide if Red can be used for feature film work, or join the long line of cameras for "industrial" use.

 

Maybe it will look great, who knows??????????

 

R,

[Carl Brighton]

"When will we see the first RED-captured feature in a cinema; that's the real question."

 

This is my primary question, what happens when Red footage is put back to 35mm and projected?

Has it been done yet?

This will decide if Red can be used for feature film work, or join the long line of cameras for "industrial" use.

Maybe it will look great, who knows??????????

 

R,

 

Well neither the Dalsa nor the D-20 has been used on any serious production thus far, although this has been "imminent" for some years now. It can't all be put down to prejudice and conservitism.

 

The problem most people have with automated Bayer reconstrucion (those who understand the problem at any rate) is that you can't guarantee it will work properly every time and for every frame. With a still picture, keying and other errors can be touched up with photoshop etc, and if you don't get it exactly right, nobody notices because there's only the one image to look at.

 

For motion picture work, you have to produce a consistent result 24 times per second, and when the result is produced by an algorithm that only infers what might be in the missing pixels, it's very difficult to arrive at the same inference every time. This can result in highly visible keying artifacts. Sure, they can be smoothed out in Post, but that sort of cancels out the alleged advantages of using an electronic camera.

 

I really don't understand what Nattress/Jannard's problem is. Even if you didn't use any sort of interpolation/uprezzing and simply ran the RED in 2K 4:2:2 mode, it should still be a damned good camera.

The problem with all the exisiting 2K HD cinematography systems is that they give pretty ordinary pictures but for pretty extraordinary prices! All this BS about being a more flexible way of making special effects films and so on is just a smokescreen to draw attention away from the fact that their "break-even" rental price is totally out of sync with the sort of images they deliver. The various manufacturers are having a hard time coming up with a plausible reason why anybody should use their products.

 

The vast majority of commercial feature films are like the vast majority of TV programs: they rarely use any special effects trickery, and the edits are mostly simple cuts. So if RED simply used sharpening algorithms to "crispen" up the image so it looks more like 4K, rather than painting themselves into a corner trying to generate faultless 4K resolution keying signals, they'd come in for a lot less skepticism.

 

If you could get film-out quality comparable to say, the Genesis, from a camera that sells for less than a week's rental of the Genesis, you'd have to be onto a winner.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Carl Brighton

[David Mullen ASC]

The various manufacturers are having a hard time coming up with a plausible reason why anybody should use their products.

 

If you could get film-out quality comparable to say, the Genesis, from a camera that sells for less than a week's rental of the Genesis, you'd have to be onto a winner.

 

I hate to break it to you, but digital cinematography is quite popular for many applications. Sony doesn't have to convince people to use an F900, nor does Panavision have to convince people to use the Genesis. Your statement seems to imply that digital cameras are dying on the vine from lack of customer interest.

 

Also, a Genesis package is about a $10,000/week rental, so it's less than the cost of a RED camera (and $17,500 is for the body only I believe -- some cine lenses can cost that much.)

 

But it's a bit apples and oranges to compare a camera for sale to a camera for rental only, since some production companies work on a rental plan only for making movies. I'm sure a TV show shooting for six months could probably buy a 35mm package and sell it back at the end of production and save money ultimately, but that's not how the system works.

 

As for the Arri D20, it doesn't help that Arri keeps implying that it's not quite ready yet, although perhaps that's a good thing because it suggests Arri is looking for ways to improve it and are not in a hurry to dump it on the market. Anyway, Arri isn't selling the D20 -- they are thinking of making it lease-only like the Panavision system. That way, they can keep upgrading it without pissing off customers who bought an earlier version.

 

Dalsa's main hurdle has always been the of recording uncompressed footage at 4K on a daily basis for a feature, perhaps a couple of hours of material every day.

[Carl Brighton]

I hate to break it to you, but digital cinematography is quite popular for many applications.

I meant film making, since there doesn't appear to be much of a market for 4K HDTV at present:P

Sony doesn't have to convince people to use an F900, nor does Panavision have to convince people to use the Genesis. Your statement seems to imply that digital cameras are dying on the vine from lack of customer interest.

Of course they don't need to convince people, for making TV programs! (Although, I haven't heard that any significant amount of this year's Prime-Time drama lineup is using anything but 35mm film).

 

By the way, apart from the first flush of movies made with the Genesis in 2005/6, what subsequent commercial cinema-release features have used it? I'm talking about something I'm likely to see in my local multiplex.

[Carl Brighton]

Entirely by coincidence, I've just noticed that "Flyboys" is already coming out on DVD!

Release date: Jan 30. Wasn't it only released in cinemas late last year?

Edited January 30, 2007 by Carl Brighton

[Will Earl]

I meant film making, since there doesn't appear to be much of a market for 4K HDTV at present:P

 

Of course they don't need to convince people, for making TV programs! (Although, I haven't heard that any significant amount of this year's Prime-Time drama lineup is using anything but 35mm film).

 

By the way, apart from the first flush of movies made with the Genesis in 2005/6, what subsequent commercial cinema-release features have used it? I'm talking about something I'm likely to see in my local multiplex.

 

I'm with David on this one, Sony and Panavision really don't need to convince anyone to use their cameras - including their use for feature films. There's a few films listed in IMDB as using the Genesis camera due for release this year (there is probably a few more which haven't been announced or aren't listed) and there's probably plenty more HDCAM features being made due for release as well. They may not have anywhere near the market share that film has, but it is increasing every year.

 

Entirely by coincidence, I've just noticed that "Flyboys" is already coming out on DVD!

Release date: Jan 30. Wasn't it only released in cinemas late last year?

 

Your point? I'm seeing a bunch of films due for release within the next month that played late last year (nov/dec).

 

Getting back to Red's schedule... they've set themselves some pretty tough goals over the last year or so, and each time they've managed to reach those goals - even if the results weren't completely amazing or revolutionary, they were still impressive. Now whether they can finish off what they started and make it a viable filmmaking tool is another question altogether, and not something that can be answered until they release an actual product.

 

For motion picture work, you have to produce a consistent result 24 times per second, and when the result is produced by an algorithm that only infers what might be in the missing pixels, it's very difficult to arrive at the same inference every time.

 

Personally I think the whole bayer reconstruction thing is a bit of a non issue. It's one of those things that on paper it would seem like a huge problem to acheiving maximum image quality, but in practice it barely warrants a mention. Guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

If the guys from Red are still paying attention to this thread, then adding automatic slate information to the head (and tail?) of each shot would be handy, being able to view different LUTs on-set, a commandline and basic scripting capabilities in your Redcode software would be nice (look at Shake, if you need an example), being able to record metadata in each clip (focal length, stop, shutter, time/date, other?) and possibly recording these values if they change during the shot (might be a bit much, maybe if it's user specified what attributes are recorded), this would be handy for vfx purposes. Also I've always wanted a camera that I could animate the camera settings on a computer (exposure, shutter, fps, zoom, etc), pop the animation data on a memory card and when I hit record, the settings are animated according to what I've programmed in. Them be my suggestions.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> Has it been done yet?

 

Well give 'em a fricken chance, I get the impression they don't actually have a camera that's particularly portable yet. I suspect what they have is a sensor glued to the back of a lens mount and a table paved with development boards (...and before anyone takes offence, I should point out that this would be entirely normal for a device at this stage of development).

 

> I really don't understand what Nattress/Jannard's problem is. Even if you didn't use any sort of

> interpolation/uprezzing and simply ran the RED in 2K 4:2:2 mode, it should still be a damned good

> camera.

 

Yes, exactly - precisely my feeling. My criticism isn't intended to be personal, it's just... why would they bother making these claims? It's probably fine anyway.

 

It should comfortably outresolve a Genesis, certainly.

 

As for recording either Red or Dalsa, neither of them are more than about 400Mbyte/second if you record the raw mosaic. I have a recorder on this desk, right now, that will record that, given an HD-SDI interface for it... and it costs under half what the Red camera does. So it can be done. Obviously, any serious user is going to want it uncompressed.

 

Phil