Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 8, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2007 there R&D department is also snowed under with future projects. Probably that longer S4 zoom (to replace the 18-100m) that everyone is asking them for :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 8, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2007 Probably that longer S4 zoom (to replace the 18-100m) that everyone is asking them for :P Hi Max, That is correct. Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 8, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2007 Did they give you additional information or will I have to drive up to Leicester with my torturing equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 So Stephen... I have to put you on the spot. What was your opinion of the RED footage. Does it look like 2K as suggested by one poster? Or Video? You have confirmed that you are not a fanboy so your opinion will carry some weight here. One other question... were you treated respectfully at the booth? I fully expect you to give an honest answer as do the rest of the members on the forum. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 8, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2007 Stephen posted his comments on the footage in another thread already. He sounded very impressed it seems. http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...t=0&start=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Stephen Williams Posted September 8, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2007 So Stephen... I have to put you on the spot. What was your opinion of the RED footage. Does it look like 2K as suggested by one poster? Or Video? You have confirmed that you are not a fanboy so your opinion will carry some weight here. One other question... were you treated respectfully at the booth? I fully expect you to give an honest answer as do the rest of the members on the forum. Jim Hi Jim, I thought the footage from Crossing the line looked very good indeed when viewed in HD & projected at 4K. I am not totally sure what you mean by looking like 2K. I saw some Genesis pictures just before, some I liked some I felt looked a little plastic but I assume that was intentional. The resolution on the 4k digital screening was very good from the Red camera, I don't think people need to worry about exactly what the resolution is after debayering, it's clearly not an issue IMO. Crossing the line does not look like 'Video' in the conventional sense. As it's totally grain free, so it's not exactly like film either. At no time during the screening did any technical issues bother me, it worked very well. Clearly one has to take care when the sun is behind clouds, a couple of shots were clipped, nothing serious. Stopping down half to one stop would probably solve the problem. The pictures looked very cinematic, I thought the skin tones were unusually good for 'digital'. I would be very happy to shoot a project with a Red camera, I have seen enough great images to be convinced you have delivered the camera you promised. I was treated very well on the Red booth by everybody who works for the RED company. I arrived an hour before the show started, asking questions as usual. I even got a chance to hand hold the camera, I posted that image last night. When I turned up today I was greeted by G.N. who recognized me from the photo, all very friendly. My best, Stephen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 8, 2007 Share Posted September 8, 2007 Stephen... thanks for posting. I would hope that Max, Phil and I might begin to have a dialog about what we can do going forward to make our system better. If either still only wants to shoot film, no problem here. But the conjecture of the past seems behind us. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 8, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 8, 2007 Jim Now that the camera is released and people can make up their own minds by shooting their own tests with it, I think we can indeed move past all that boring conjecture and numbers and simply let the images speak for themselves. I am obviously very curious to see some projected 4K footage as well, preferably a comparison test with 35mm, which is the standard that I am familiar with. As for shooting on the Red myself, you'll have to forgive me, at least for the time being, as I am currently looking to shoot my next film in 65mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas James Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 What we don't like about digital is the fact that by its square arrangement of pixels it disects reality into a sequential series of boxes. Now is this how the human eye works ? And the answer is no. While the rods and cones of the human eye form irregular patterns nevertheless there are much better mathmatical aproximations to these patterns than what the inventors of digital video have given us so far. A true inventor of anthropomorphic machine vision would realize that pixels should not be arranged in a square tile mosaic but rather arranged as concentric circles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck colburn Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Jim Now that the camera is released and people can make up their own minds by shooting their own tests with it, I think we can indeed move past all that boring conjecture and numbers and simply let the images speak for themselves. I am obviously very curious to see some projected 4K footage as well, preferably a comparison test with 35mm, which is the standard that I am familiar with. As for shooting on the Red myself, you'll have to forgive me, at least for the time being, as I am currently looking to shoot my next film in 65mm. What camera body are you using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted September 9, 2007 Author Premium Member Share Posted September 9, 2007 What camera body are you using? Arri 765. The film is all dolly and crane, no handheld or steadicam. It's mostly wider shots and long takes. The format is perfect for what I want to do. It's really just a question of fitting 65mm it into the budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Schneider Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 It would be nice if the 4K resolution of RED serves to push film imaging further along with it. The 65mm "As Good as it Gets" screening that Bill Bennett did was amazing. The thing that blew me away the most was a 4K screening of a restored 65mm print of "The Sound of Music". It is 42 years old, and it blew away anything I have ever seen, digital OR film. I saw "Crossing the Line" the very next day, and considering the fact that I had just watched so much 65mm, it still held up well. The grainless and detailed feeling was very similar. However, I am really looking forward to see how far RED can be pushed in the studio and in exteriors. Good luck shooting 65mm Max. We should all be so lucky. Jim, while you're here, is there any word on when overcranking will be implemented? I don't suppose you guys are considering having Lens Data System or Cooke iIntellegence lens system compatibility? It would be a nice option. I'm interested to see how the 18-50 does at it begins testing in the open market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Max, Congratulations on the project. No negative (no pun intended) from me on shooting 65mm film. What is the project, if I can ask? Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuck colburn Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Arri 765. The film is all dolly and crane, no handheld or steadicam. It's mostly wider shots and long takes. The format is perfect for what I want to do. It's really just a question of fitting 65mm it into the budget. Cool. Be sure to get a tripod and head too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 What we don't like about digital is the fact that by its square arrangement of pixels it disects reality into a sequential series of boxes. Now is this how the human eye works ? And the answer is no. While the rods and cones of the human eye form irregular patterns nevertheless there are much better mathmatical aproximations to these patterns than what the inventors of digital video have given us so far. A true inventor of anthropomorphic machine vision would realize that pixels should not be arranged in a square tile mosaic but rather arranged as concentric circles. Tomas... who is the "we" you are talking about? And have you seen "Crossing" in 4k? I haven't heard anyone who has seen it say that it looked like "video". That list now seems to include Stephen Williams. Broad statements like this only mean something if you have seen our footage. Math just does not apply. No disrespect intended. I'm just curious how you can make that statement without seeing the footage. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamo P Cultraro Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Jim, I'm surprised you care what people like Max, Phil and others think. I don't have a RED on order (yet), but am real close. It's obvious to me you've got a great product and between me and my DP, we kind of laugh at the internet know-it-alls. Not sure if your presence here is damage control, but in the circles I swim in, RED is well spoken of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruairi Robinson Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Tomas... who is the "we" you are talking about? And have you seen "Crossing" in 4k? I haven't heard anyone who has seen it say that it looked like "video". That list now seems to include Stephen Williams. Broad statements like this only mean something if you have seen our footage. Math just does not apply. No disrespect intended. I'm just curious how you can make that statement without seeing the footage. Jim Unless you use concentric circles, your series of boxes can NEVER compete with film, which, uses celluloid, and silver halide crystals. ...Just like the human eye. Btw Jim - congrats on getting the camera shipping. I was a little concerned with some issues on the earliest images posted, but I have to admit that what I've been seeing since has been far more impressive. I had good feeling from the start about this project, and I'm glad you've made good on your promises in the face of an astonishing amount of pointless negativity. Look forward to seeing the 4k images projected. Best of luck, R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Jim, I'm surprised you care what people like Max, Phil and others think. I don't have a RED on order (yet), but am real close. It's obvious to me you've got a great product and between me and my DP, we kind of laugh at the internet know-it-alls. Not sure if your presence here is damage control, but in the circles I swim in, RED is well spoken of. Did you pay Dwight Yoakum for the rights to his song in your short.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary McClurg Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Did you pay Dwight Yoakum for the rights to his song in your short.... Actually that was a low blow on my part... but I'm tired of people coming on here and making digs... so lets all try and get along... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adamo P Cultraro Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Gary, No, I didn't. But I did give him a credit!!!!! Did you like it? I'm not here to scrap it out, man. I agree - let's get along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mitch Gross Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 Tomas... who is the "we" you are talking about? And have you seen "Crossing" in 4k? I haven't heard anyone who has seen it say that it looked like "video". That list now seems to include Stephen Williams. Broad statements like this only mean something if you have seen our footage. Math just does not apply. No disrespect intended. I'm just curious how you can make that statement without seeing the footage. Jim Jim, I know that you don't read these forums too often (what with building a revolutionary camera and all!) so allow me to introduce to you Mr. Thomas James. When he isn't pontificating on the virtues of the little JVC camera as the greatest thing since the zoetrope, he is tossing out theoretical nonsense that has little to no basis in the practical world. I question whether he has ever held any camera ever. We have all learned to generally ignore him and I respectfully suggest you do the same. Oh, and I'm the one who has said repeatedly that RED may just make its biggest profits on its lenses. Lot and lots of people even outside RED One owners can make plenty of use out of decent affordable 35mm lenses at lest than 1/4th the cost of other glass. Oh yeah, and congrats on well, everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Schneider Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 As I understand it, most camera manufacturers make the majority of their money on accessories, and often lose money on the actual camera. It's a proven model, and is much like computers and software. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 As I understand it, most camera manufacturers make the majority of their money on accessories, and often lose money on the actual camera. It's a proven model, and is much like computers and software. There has been much speculation on our motives for pricing. We are in this to deliver the best camera we can to our customers... and make money so we can do it again. Our competition would love you to believe we aren't profitable with this project. We are. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Logan Schneider Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I'm not saying that this is necessarily true for RED, but it's not unheard of by any means. I just meant to say that in the manufacturing of film equipment, the financial return can often come from unexpected sectors. If you can make money off of the actual camera body then fantastic, but it by no means is the decisive factor in becoming profitable for many companies. I'm sure that RED has a very thought out business model. It will be interesting to see how the other camera companies adapt to RED's introduction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Jannard Posted September 9, 2007 Share Posted September 9, 2007 I'm not saying that this is necessarily true for RED, but it's not unheard of by any means. I just meant to say that in the manufacturing of film equipment, the financial return can often come from unexpected sectors. If you can make money off of the actual camera body then fantastic, but it by no means is the decisive factor in becoming profitable for many companies. I'm sure that RED has a very thought out business model. It will be interesting to see how the other camera companies adapt to RED's introduction. We are anxious to see what our competition does as well... :-) We do have a plan that extends out several years. Jim 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