Bouncers kicked out SONY

[Dan Goulder]

The motion picture industry earns more than four times as much money as the adult industry.

It's also a business where most of the screwing takes place off camera.

[Andrew Ray]

Fantastic statement. I'll need to print that out and save it somewhere. >8)

 

Film making has never been limited to the rich or select few...but it has been limited to the resourceful and creative.

 

 

Should be this statement " but it has NOT been limited to the resourceful and creative" ??

[Mark Williams]

Film making has never been limited to the rich or select few...but it has been limited to the resourceful and creative.

Well Id like to see the resourceful and creative hire a panny kit for three months? How much does a mainstream film cost these days? Id like to meet someone this resourceful and creative? I reckon there are a very few though whose creativity and willingness to put everything on the line have made it though.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Mark Williams

[Alexander Joyce]

Well Id like to see the resourceful and creative hire a panny kit for three months? How much does a mainstream film cost these days?

 

You don't need a Panavision or an ARRI or 35mm at all to make a successful feature, but the way you are putting it the Red will solve all of this and suddenly anyone can make one.

A feature can cost millions to produce. That money isn't all going into the pockets of camera rental companies like you seem to think.

This camera will perhaps change the mid-range segment, but it won't ever let just anyone produce a feature film. You're living in la-la land.

[Mark Williams]

You don't need a Panavision or an ARRI or 35mm at all to make a successful feature, but the way you are putting it the Red will solve all of this and suddenly anyone can make one.

A feature can cost millions to produce. That money isn't all going into the pockets of camera rental companies like you seem to think.

This camera will perhaps change the mid-range segment, but it won't ever let just anyone produce a feature film. You're living in la-la land.

NO I have said the red will change the way films are made and actually yes many will be able tto make a film what I have said and am saying is that films will be made cheaper not as well and badly too. But will be more tailored to specific communities or interests. Those films will be more popular and serve a smaller audience The monopoly hollywood had will be over. Times are changing and so is the way we get our entertainment.

[Guest]

Well Id like to see the resourceful and creative hire a panny kit for three months? How much does a mainstream film cost these days? Id like to meet someone this resourceful and creative? I reckon there are a very few though whose creativity and willingness to put everything on the line have made it though.

 

Well Mark I guess I'll be able to answer this question for you in a few months. As I am one of these "very few" you're talking about. I do have the willingness to put every thing on the line, I have done so many times in the past and I'll keep doing it.

 

I highly doubt one would have to pay for every day of use on the "panny kit", most rental companies offer 3 in 7 rental rates, especially to indie people. Also, if you're shooting film, why does one need a Panavison set up?

 

An older BL 3 or 4 will do just fine and produce the exact same picture as the Panavison with the same film stock and operator at the controls. You can rent a BL 3 or 4 super cheap these days. Heck you can buy one off ebay for not very much money, and stick it back on ebay when you're done with it.

 

I could write pages about how to do things a lot cheaper than what they teach in film school, and especially the studios. The end result will of course not be exactly like the typical studio feature, but then again the break even point with my approach is less than the cost of a Hollywood crew for one day.

 

R,

[Mark Williams]

Well Mark I guess I'll be able to answer this question for you in a few months. As I am one of these "very few" you're talking about. I do have the willingness to put every thing on the line, I have done so many times in the past and I'll keep doing it.

 

I highly doubt one would have to pay for every day of use on the "panny kit", most rental companies offer 3 in 7 rental rates, especially to indie people. Also, if you're shooting film, why does one need a Panavison set up?

 

An older BL 3 or 4 will do just fine and produce the exact same picture as the Panavison with the same film stock and operator at the controls. You can rent a BL 3 or 4 super cheap these days. Heck you can buy one off ebay for not very much money, and stick it back on ebay when you're done with it.

 

I could write pages about how to do things a lot cheaper than what they teach in film school, and especially the studios. The end result will of course not be exactly like the typical studio feature, but then again the break even point with my approach is less than the cost of a Hollywood crew for one day.

 

R,

Go for it Richard I wish you every success. In my book you deserve it!

[Walter Graff]

I'm fascinated at the new way information is dispersed these days. It's based not on fact much anymore but rather opinion quickly turned into fact with no relevance to reality. The whole RED discussion related to how it will change Hollywood is a perfect example. About the closest I association I can make was when HD came to be with the F900 and everyone said film would shortly be dead. It's all fun and in a year time after RED hasn't done what all the wannabe filmmakers (aka hobbyists, You-tube filmmakers) dreamed; given their work more credibility because now it was shot with 4k rather than anything less, I wonder what the next cult following will be.

 

I guess the big problem is differentiating what most of the folks do here for a living and what theuy do as a hobby. I find most all RED discussions are by hobbyest who dream of technology as a method to creativity. There are a few people on htis board who actually have a career in teh field of film and television. And then there are a lot of hobbyists, people who would love a career in the industry, and are following the wrong path to achieving it. Thinking a piece of technology is goign to do that for you is a giveaway that you have little experience, or have much of a chance working I the real field of film and television.

 

It's made it easier now that it has become clear that most of the dribble in these RED discussions are not by folks who really make a career out of film and video. There are a few valid RED discussions for pros, and like professional discussions they usually end up being a page or two of valid discussions and thought that then wither out due to the facts being presented and points being made. Hopefully the pros here will no longer be driven into endless conversations about RED by folks who have little use for it, but talk the language of film making because they read books and sound like they are offering valid points, but eventually give themselves away when they ask where they can buy a RED shirt.

 

Basically if a thread is more than a page or two you can bet it's being 'run' by hobbyists who dream of a career, but rather than go down the path we all did to make it a career, think a camera will be a ticket to skip the line and that too is the biggest giveaway.

[Guest]

They ought to change the name of this thread to 'myths' as the Jumblemouths are running ramped here.

 

Video Sales and rentals for 2006 adult industry 3.62 bil

Internet adult sales 2006 2.84 bil

Cable / PPV / In-Room / Mobile / Phone Sex 2.19 bil

Total for three categories of adult industry $8.65 bil

 

You'll often hear a larger overall number thrown around such as #13bill. That is because it also includes magazines, dance clubs, and the sex novelty industry. I discluded info that was not comparable with the motion picture industry which by the way in 2006 box office revenue (not even including home video sales and rentals which was $23.6 bil) was $9.84 billion.

 

Warner Home Video made $4.26 billion in home video spending last year, about 18% of the home video market). And that is only a portion of their business. The largest porn video maker, Vivid, made $100 mill total in all catagories.

 

Translation:

 

Motion picture industry theater and home video $33.44 bil

Adult picture industry including all sales and rental, PPV/In-room/mobile 8.35 bil

 

The motion picture industry earns more than four times as much money as the adult industry.

So it is a myth that porn makes more than the motion picture industry but since this is a RED forum, myths are the flavor of the day. This thread alone is a book worth of myths thrown around as fact. This is one example.

Now if you want I can get into the myth that they are a serious industry who has a lot of money to spend too?

 

After looking at some stats from various suppliers on the web, there appears to be a substantial amount of contradictory information out there. Part of the issue is that most porn movie operations are privately owned and therefore may embellish their numbers without any way for an outside party to verify what they are saying is accurate.

 

The Hollywood studios are also famous for their "accounting" practices. I forget who said, "The only thing creative about Hollywood is the accounting."

 

The studios are famous for trumpeting the financial success of their movies, and in the next breath telling the people they owe royalties to, "we didn't make very much on that movie."

 

Certainly there is room to believe that the porn industry is more profitable than the Hollywood studios. Vivid may have only made 100 million, but I'll bet their expenses to generate that 100 million where a lot less than what Universal has to spend to generate 100 million. The porn business doesn't have to dole out 20 million for an A-list actor, they don't need the best writers (do they even have writers?), and they certainly don't have the best DOPs that money can buy.

 

The porn folks have demonstrated that they are early adopters. And since they do have cash to spend and produce a high volume of "works". It will be interesting to see if they embrace or ignore Red? Or some thing in the middle.

 

There was a time in NYC where there was a huge surge in the number BetaCams being stolen from news crews. Eventually it was learned that the cameras where being ripped off, and sold for cheap to the porn business. Who found the price tag of a new BetaCam a bit high.

 

So Red owners, keep an eye on those cameras.

 

R,

[Walter Graff]

There was a time in NYC where there was a huge surge in the number BetaCams being stolen from news crews. Eventually it was learned that the cameras where being ripped off, and sold for cheap to the porn business.

 

R,

 

Please!!!! When will the myths stop. Roger Macie runs the worlds largest stolen camera website. http://broadcastvideo.com/netpolice/ The results of most investigations into theft show they were brought and used in South America or in general attempted to be fenced in all regions of the Us, AND NOT DIRECTLY TO THE PORN INDUSTRY. Or said another way, if the porn industry has so much money to throw around, why such an effort to steal cameras? Please teh myths must stop.

 

The porn industry myth sounds good because as we all know porn makers are all drug addicts/low lifes/etc. But then again if you came form Mars and read these RED boards, you'd want to buy a RED camera too based on the outlandish claims here.

 

PS my sources for all information in the earlier posts are the industry associations and some of the research groups that predict trends and report on industry changes that I am a member of since I do consulting in media.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

NO I have said the red will change the way films are made and actually yes many will be able tto make a film what I have said and am saying is that films will be made cheaper not as well and badly too. But will be more tailored to specific communities or interests. Those films will be more popular and serve a smaller audience The monopoly hollywood had will be over. Times are changing and so is the way we get our entertainment.

 

 

Really?

 

Funny, I heard the exact same thing in '96 when the VX-1000 came out and introduced MiniDV, then more recently when the DVX100 came out. The only thing more cheaper technology seems to bring is more crap on the internet.

 

I have no problem with the higher cost of current HD and film. It forces filmmakers to create a story good enough to raise interest and money to afford to make it with what's out there right now. So what now? We get to see 4k first drafts. Can't wait.

 

By the way 'smaller audience' and 'popular' do not compliment one another. I think hollywood is just fine having the larger audience.

 

Every day the sun rises, new technology will appear and someone somewhere will proclaim a revolution. People will always have an inherent need to see stories told in a dark theater will hundreds of strangers. And to access those masses you need to work within, not outside the system.

 

The only true revolution I could see is if everyone buying a RED actually took that money and paid good writers to develop and pen their ideas. Then we'd see a ton of good films. THAT would be something impressive. Shoot them on minidv...no one would give a poop if they were good...including Hollywood.

[Hal Smith]

The only true revolution I could see is if everyone buying a RED actually took that money and paid good writers to develop and pen their ideas. Then we'd see a ton of good films. THAT would be something impressive. Shoot them on minidv...no one would give a poop if they were good...including Hollywood.

Truer words were never spoken. Film, as everything else in life, is a GIGO situation.

[Brian Dzyak]

I'm fascinated at the new way information is dispersed these days. It's based not on fact much anymore but rather opinion quickly turned into fact with no relevance to reality. The whole RED discussion related to how it will change Hollywood is a perfect example. About the closest I association I can make was when HD came to be with the F900 and everyone said film would shortly be dead. It's all fun and in a year time after RED hasn't done what all the wannabe filmmakers (aka hobbyists, You-tube filmmakers) dreamed; given their work more credibility because now it was shot with 4k rather than anything less, I wonder what the next cult following will be.

 

I guess the big problem is differentiating what most of the folks do here for a living and what theuy do as a hobby. I find most all RED discussions are by hobbyest who dream of technology as a method to creativity. There are a few people on htis board who actually have a career in teh field of film and television. And then there are a lot of hobbyists, people who would love a career in the industry, and are following the wrong path to achieving it. Thinking a piece of technology is goign to do that for you is a giveaway that you have little experience, or have much of a chance working I the real field of film and television.

 

It's made it easier now that it has become clear that most of the dribble in these RED discussions are not by folks who really make a career out of film and video. There are a few valid RED discussions for pros, and like professional discussions they usually end up being a page or two of valid discussions and thought that then wither out due to the facts being presented and points being made. Hopefully the pros here will no longer be driven into endless conversations about RED by folks who have little use for it, but talk the language of film making because they read books and sound like they are offering valid points, but eventually give themselves away when they ask where they can buy a RED shirt.

 

Basically if a thread is more than a page or two you can bet it's being 'run' by hobbyists who dream of a career, but rather than go down the path we all did to make it a career, think a camera will be a ticket to skip the line and that too is the biggest giveaway.

 

 

Nicely said. The reality of the business from my point of view to this point is that I don't necessarily choose which format I want to shoot in. A client on Monday may need HDCAM while the client on Thursday may want Digibeta. A weekend press junket will likely use BetaSP still. Owning no camera allows me the mental freedom to work with any or all of those clients as I feel no pressure to put my own camera to work to pay it off.

 

Having said that, if/when I do decide to purchase a camera, that choice will automatically guide the kinds of clients I do work for. I'll be less likely to take work from clients who don't want to use my camera. So if I buy an HDV, I'll likely wind up working for low-budget projects that can't afford more. If I buy an F900R, I'll be working for clients who have more money to spend.

 

What if I buy a RED? What kinds of clients will ask for that? I wish I knew. Because of what I do at the moment, it's in my best interest to learn how to use every camera that is out there, which is why I can use everything from a Panaflex Platinum to an PD150. But would I buy any of them right now just to get that kind of work (well, not BUY a Panaflex, but you get the idea)? Not likely because the formats are so all over the board right now. And I'd personally wait until the dust settles on RED to see what kind of clients will be asking for it before putting too much effort into learning it myself.

 

My $.02 anyway.

[Mark Williams]

PS my sources for all information in the earlier posts are the industry associations and some of the research groups that predict trends and report on industry changes that I am a member of since I do consulting in media.

I don't why you wont accept what will very soon be reality? The red will take away the need for just about all the other cameras which will be well overpriced and underpowered compared to the red.. WHY would ANYONE buy a Camera that is inferior? This is what I don't understand in this debate. So much anger and putdowns because of an inevitable situation. I DON'T like it either. I like the Cameras out there as they are but they are all going to be superceded UNLESS you can tell me a way they can even begin to compete? Even now there will be a mad scramble to get a red its going to be the only camera neccesary?

 

Also Your assumption that people have to work in the industry to have an opinion on its future just doesn't work.

[Stephen Williams]

I don't why you wont accept what will very soon be reality? The red will take away the need for just about all the other cameras which will be well overpriced and underpowered compared to the red.. WHY would ANYONE buy a Camera that is inferior? This is what I don't understand in this debate. So much anger and putdowns because of an inevitable situation. I DON'T like it either. I like the Cameras out there as they are but they are all going to be superceded UNLESS you can tell me a way they can even begin to compete? Even now there will be a mad scramble to get a red its going to be the only camera neccesary?

 

Also Your assumption that people have to work in the industry to have an opinion on its future just doesn't work.

 

Hi Mark,

 

Do you regulary work as a cameraman or DOP,getting paid for your work? just curious.

 

Stephen

[Guest]

Please!!!! When will the myths stop. Roger Macie runs the worlds largest stolen camera website. http://broadcastvideo.com/netpolice/ The results of most investigations into theft show they were brought and used in South America or in general attempted to be fenced in all regions of the Us, AND NOT DIRECTLY TO THE PORN INDUSTRY. Or said another way, if the porn industry has so much money to throw around, why such an effort to steal cameras? Please teh myths must stop.

 

The porn industry myth sounds good because as we all know porn makers are all drug addicts/low lifes/etc. But then again if you came form Mars and read these RED boards, you'd want to buy a RED camera too based on the outlandish claims here.

 

PS my sources for all information in the earlier posts are the industry associations and some of the research groups that predict trends and report on industry changes that I am a member of since I do consulting in media.

 

I'm beginning to think Walter that the only spreader of myths on this site is you.

 

Despite what you say there is evidence on the web to contradict you. I didn't say it was people that worked directly for the porn industry that stole the cameras. I said the cameras where stolen, and then sold to some porn producers. What difference does it make if the cameras end up in the South American porn biz? The porn biz is the porn biz. The gear was stolen and some times ended up being used in the business of making porno movies.

 

That link you provide does not show any evidence as to the destination of the stolen gear, it's just a list of stolen gear.

 

You should read this:

 

"Despite the digital revolution, beta-cams are still the industry standard and what thieves want most. It?s believed that stolen cameras are sent to South America where there is a lucrative resale market. Many cameras are eventually used in the porn industry there."

 

"Bigger cities like New York are notorious for rings of camera thieves who work in teams. For example, one may run up to a photographer and spray them with ketchup or mustard, while another one grabs the camera. Stations across the country have received warnings of thieves who target conventions or high profile media events."

 

http://www.tvjobs.com/cgi-bin/featurestori...n=view&Id=4

[Brian Dzyak]

I don't why you wont accept what will very soon be reality? The red will take away the need for just about all the other cameras which will be well overpriced and underpowered compared to the red.. WHY would ANYONE buy a Camera that is inferior? This is what I don't understand in this debate. So much anger and putdowns because of an inevitable situation. I DON'T like it either. I like the Cameras out there as they are but they are all going to be superceded UNLESS you can tell me a way they can even begin to compete? Even now there will be a mad scramble to get a red its going to be the only camera neccesary?

 

The reason RED might not take off the way you believe it will is because of the realities of the business as I was getting at above. RED MIGHT take off, I'm not suggesting it won't, but there is more to choosing a format than merely because it is the "best" quality out there. Things like end-use, post capability, and overall budget tend to guide the format decisions more often than the "quality" of the picture a camera can acquire. For instance, a lot of post houses are just now getting into the swing of things in regard to the workflow for HDCAM. There isn't going to be a huge desire to scrap all of that in order to provide support for a brand new high quality camera just because a lot of aspiring "filmmakers" can now buy one at a "reasonable" price. IF the client doesn't have the capability or desire to deal with the RED format in post or in distribution, they won't no matter how much anyone tries to sell image quality.

 

For better or worse, "Good Enough" is sometimes the rule, and as it stands right now, something like HDCAM really is "good enough" as it fulfills the need for a high quality image at a fairly reasonable cost with a workflow that is now becoming the rule. Not too many clients are about to just dump that overall picture just because there is a 4K camera now available. Maybe in time, but certainly not right away, not until HDCAM isn't "good enough" anymore. I mean, heck, BetaSP is still "good enough" for a lot of outlets, so given that timeline for the "death of SP," RED will likely just be one more choice, but definitely not the only choice.

 

 

Also Your assumption that people have to work in the industry to have an opinion on its future just doesn't work.

Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion, but those who actually have careers in the industry that pay for food, shelter, and other necessities of life tend to have a more informed opinion, particularly when we get away from the theoretical arguments of quality and "art." Fortunately or unfortunately, there is a lot more to making a movie or the like than just being "creative." Realities of budget and other parameters guide decision making more than the perceived quality of a piece of equipment.

[Adam Thompson]

I like to avoid these types of discussions because they rarely teach anyone a thing in the end but posts like this one are too loud to avoid. Man, you obviously haven't worked on a feature before, or a real one anyway. I just helped a director/producer, who I'm sharing an office with right now, finish his feature budget that will most likely be shot on Super16. The director clearly knows his @#$% and loves the media of choice because of what it is, and what it is not.

 

What you find within the real world of feature production are expenses and complications that leave the whole film cost debate in the dust. I don't have it front of me right now but from what I recall, I'd say that maybe 25% of his total costs were film and camera related. So what if he decides to shoot on a red cam? Knowing him, he won't like the overly sharp video style images but he may love knowing 'we have what we wanted' and would suggest experimenting with filters, etc. to actually downgrade the images. So assume we use the red instead, what then? Do I use less in lighting gear? No. Do I get to use smaller support or do I get rid of the dolly and stedicam? No. Does the red cause crew and cast to eat less? No. Do we all still need to sleep somewhere? Uh, I hope. Does the set have to be less dressed or can it look more fake? No. Does a SAG actor get less pay with the red? Nope. Do I still have to rent real lenses (I'm damn picky)? Yes. Do we still need a professional sound man? Yes, OH Yes. Do we still need a real post sound designer/mixer, or what about an AD? Yes, without a doubt; adinfinitm.

 

 

Where are these magic savings? I'm one of the bunch that will most likely own a red at some point. Certainly not the first generation but gen. II, maybe so. Would it ever be practical for a wedding? Never. For music videos? Oh sure. Hell Super8 may become more desirable in many ways for these shows.

 

Something better? I'd 100% assure you of that. Did you know, just for example, that Aaton (a real cinema camera company) is developing a video sensor 'magazine' which would make the Penelope able to shoot 35mm, even in two perf, as well as shoot red style video? You think any pro or heavy production won't use something from them first before someone unknown, with no support infrastructure, like red? Do you know how important infrastructure is to a six figure and above production? It's not even an option, it must exist. Arri has it all in place and they have one hec of a dig. cam which will of course come down in price and only get better image wise.

 

And also consider that even now, many DP's will choose a format like S16 simply because 35mm (or red?) has become too sterile for a given film. The Last King of Scotland worked a lot better in S16. Leaving Las Vegas did too. Babel was too clean, even in the end, for the DP who shot it. He wanted the Morrocan stuff to have grain and feel dirty but he said the scans of the S16 film were too good and looked too much like 35mm. Deakins wanted Jarhead to be on S16 at first as well, but they ended up with 35 in the end. Cameron is shooting digital for Avatar; his budget is rumored to be $200mil. Just some thoughts to keep in mind when assuming too much about some given techno marketing.

 

I think the hopefuls out there feel that the red style cams are going to finally give them some chance to justify themselves to their peers or family but sadly, after the dust settles, I don't think it will even make a dent. This may be why so much emotion is behind these fan posts. Simply: Shows cost because they cost, there is no magic trick, no way around it. I've done my share of no budget projects for people and trust me, they don't go anywhere for a reason, it has absolutely nothing to do with what cam they were shot on, it's all those other things that trendy film classes, the new media and modern marketing do not teach you.

 

 

 

 

My goodness people here just don't get it? Who in their right mind (NOW think about this) who is going to buy a mid range camera when they can have the red? NO ONE with any sense.

 

Wedding videographers will buy the camera and downconvert.

 

Red technolgy will diversify with smaller fixed lens units and mass produced.

 

NOW all this means there will be only one type of technology for cameras REDS. Unless someone comes up with something better which I doubt.

 

All THE CAMERA Manufacturers will have to seriously alter the way they do business. Rental houses will be reduced to grip only.

 

This is if the red truly is the camera described by David and everything is as grounbreaking as were being told. Is it any wonder I couldn't believe the red was for real.

 

I for one will certainly not be buying any cameras in the near future.

 

Is there anyone here going to invest in a mid priced semi pro model at this point in time? I bet their is BUT I most certainly would not.

 

As for the industry, your all busted. The field just leveled. Film making is no longer the domain of a rich or select few. In some ways thats good. Although in the past the industry has had standards in morality and influenced our society even if those standards have been slipping in the search for more and more money. But for the most part it will add to the breakdown of values and morals.

[Mark Williams]

The reason RED might not take off the way you believe it will is because of the realities of the business as I was getting at above. RED MIGHT take off, I'm not suggesting it won't, but there is more to choosing a format than merely because it is the "best" quality out there. Things like end-use, post capability, and overall budget tend to guide the format decisions more often than the "quality" of the picture a camera can acquire. For instance, a lot of post houses are just now getting into the swing of things in regard to the workflow for HDCAM.

 

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

Yes and red can deliver to any workflow situation. it changes nothing

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

 

There isn't going to be a huge desire to scrap all of that in order to provide support for a brand new high quality camera just because a lot of aspiring "filmmakers" can now buy one at a "reasonable" price. IF the client doesn't have the capability or desire to deal with the RED format in post or in distribution, they won't no matter how much anyone tries to sell image quality.

 

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

No one will scrap existing equipment, but when they need new or to upgrade, it will be the red

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

 

For better or worse, "Good Enough" is sometimes the rule, and as it stands right now, something like HDCAM really is "good enough" as it fulfills the need for a high quality image at a fairly reasonable cost with a workflow that is now becoming the rule. Not too many clients are about to just dump that overall picture just because there is a 4K camera now available. Maybe in time, but certainly not right away, not until HDCAM isn't "good enough" anymore.

 

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

Yes I agree for example Dr who the new series wasn't made in HD on the grounds HD wasnt neccesary.

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

 

I mean, heck, BetaSP is still "good enough" for a lot of outlets, so given that timeline for the "death of SP," RED will likely just be one more choice, but definitely not the only choice.

 

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

Yes but why buy inferior?

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

 

Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion, but those who actually have careers in the industry that pay for food, shelter, and other necessities of life tend to have a more informed opinion, particularly when we get away from the theoretical arguments of quality and "art." Fortunately or unfortunately, there is a lot more to making a movie or the like than just being "creative." Realities of budget and other parameters guide decision making more than the perceived quality of a piece of equipment.

 

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

But its not about making a decision about the cost or the right package or what camera can do what best. THATS all gone out of the window. The red means everything works down from it IT can do the lot and at a lower cost.

[Mark Williams]

Well for me the debate is over. I hope I haven't upset people I would like to think a healthy debate is the purpose of this forum my persistence in often going over old ground was to test and seek some hope for the future. My belief that the red will change everything hasn't changed though and I understand and respect the views of those who disagree. . :)

[Ruairi Robinson]

Well I dont mean to rain on your parade but the red one doesnt exist its an illusion a non starter an imaginary figment of a film promotion. In fact not one frame has been filmed with this camera because it hasnt been made. it does not compress images it is not lossless the two statements are themselves contradictory. It is in fact a myth a legend it has no basis in reality its whole purpose was and is to promote a film. However the joke is only a joke if people are laughing and people laugh in the moment. This moment has now passed its beyond a joke its no longer funny. The only funny thing is why the website is taking peoples credit card numbers now thats not REALLY funny at all. In fact we all dont mind helping promote films etc but do we really know what is now going beyond the pale?

 

I don't why you wont accept what will very soon be reality? The red will take away the need for just about all the other cameras which will be well overpriced and underpowered compared to the red.. WHY would ANYONE buy a Camera that is inferior? This is what I don't understand in this debate. So much anger and putdowns because of an inevitable situation. I DON'T like it either. I like the Cameras out there as they are but they are all going to be superceded UNLESS you can tell me a way they can even begin to compete? Even now there will be a mad scramble to get a red its going to be the only camera neccesary?

 

Mark, it's been interesting watching you turn in just a couple of days from fanatically anti-red to fanatically pro-red, regardless of the verified facts. Yes, those two quotes above are both from Mark.

 

What's less interesting is watching you hijack every thread about the camera with wild speculation that's completely off topic. If you want to talk about stuff that's off topic, could you please at least start your own thread?

[Warren Shultz]

I'm fascinated at the new way information is dispersed these days. It's based not on fact much anymore but rather opinion quickly turned into fact with no relevance to reality. The whole RED discussion related to how it will change Hollywood is a perfect example. About the closest I association I can make was when HD came to be with the F900 and everyone said film would shortly be dead. It's all fun and in a year time after RED hasn't done what all the wannabe filmmakers (aka hobbyists, You-tube filmmakers) dreamed; given their work more credibility because now it was shot with 4k rather than anything less, I wonder what the next cult following will be.

 

I guess the big problem is differentiating what most of the folks do here for a living and what theuy do as a hobby. I find most all RED discussions are by hobbyest who dream of technology as a method to creativity. There are a few people on htis board who actually have a career in teh field of film and television. And then there are a lot of hobbyists, people who would love a career in the industry, and are following the wrong path to achieving it. Thinking a piece of technology is goign to do that for you is a giveaway that you have little experience, or have much of a chance working I the real field of film and television.

 

It's made it easier now that it has become clear that most of the dribble in these RED discussions are not by folks who really make a career out of film and video. There are a few valid RED discussions for pros, and like professional discussions they usually end up being a page or two of valid discussions and thought that then wither out due to the facts being presented and points being made. Hopefully the pros here will no longer be driven into endless conversations about RED by folks who have little use for it, but talk the language of film making because they read books and sound like they are offering valid points, but eventually give themselves away when they ask where they can buy a RED shirt.

 

Basically if a thread is more than a page or two you can bet it's being 'run' by hobbyists who dream of a career, but rather than go down the path we all did to make it a career, think a camera will be a ticket to skip the line and that too is the biggest giveaway.

 

 

Hey Walter,

Did you mean "dribble" as in allowing saliva to drip from one's mouth or "drivel" as in talking nonsense? Or were you making another incredibly clever pun? I'm just curious why you're commenting on page 9 when professionalism stops at page 2.

 

I make a decent living in the television industry but I don't mind the "hobbyists," as you seem to deridingly call them, joining in, nor do I believe they are ALL doing it wrong.

[Richard Salsburg]

This forum is kind of meaningless. I post a discussion about SONY being kicked out of the RED booth and we get completely sidetracked. Doesn't anybody else think that this was highly inappropriate? As to the guy that posted before, if they wanted to just talk to him they would've done it after the screening not before don't you think?

[Guest]

This forum is kind of meaningless. I post a discussion about SONY being kicked out of the RED booth and we get completely sidetracked. Doesn't anybody else think that this was highly inappropriate? As to the guy that posted before, if they wanted to just talk to him they would've done it after the screening not before don't you think?

 

If the forum is meaningless why did you post, again?

 

R,

[David Mullen ASC]

This forum is kind of meaningless. I post a discussion about SONY being kicked out of the RED booth and we get completely sidetracked. Doesn't anybody else think that this was highly inappropriate?

 

It sounds more like the guy was being disruptive and trying to cut in past people who had waited in line, so it was appropriate. You can't expect people to discuss a situation that you aren't necessarily describing accurately. Besides, I think we've already run out of ways to discuss it.