Are those crickets I hear???

[Stephen Williams]

Like I said, my biggest question right now centers around the radically mixed reports I'm hearing regarding the dynamic range, which range from "amazing" to "like other HD cameras". It seems one cause, though, is how people are using the settings in RedAlert to convert the RAW footage.

 

Hi David,

 

All of the images where there is a bright highlight show hard clipping, including the PJ short. I understood there was a problem with the alpha prototypes PJ used, I have heard many times references to 11.3 stops, I just hope soon to see some images that demonstrate what the production cameras can achieve. Wedge tests would be a good starting point IMO.

 

Stephen

[Tom Lowe]

I think Mike Hunt is justified to make a thread like this. A lot of poop was talked here about RED, but since it has become clear that Jim is not a "con man" perpetrating a "scam", all the guys who talked a lot of poop here have run for the hills or crawled under a table... or are quietly placing orders themselves.

 

Yes, Hunt's post was provocative, but so were the dozens of threads posted here badmouthing Jim and calling Red a scam.

[Stephen Williams]

Yes, Hunt's post was provocative, but so were the dozens of threads posted here badmouthing Jim and calling Red a scam.

 

Hi Tom,

 

I am not aware of dozens of threads badmouthing Jim and Calling Red a scam.

 

I think you owe this board an apology.

 

Stephen

[Adam Thompson]

Hi Tom,

 

I am not aware of dozens of threads badmouthing Jim and Calling Red a scam.

 

I think you owe this board an apology.

 

Stephen

 

I and many others second that I'm sure. People here are, in general, working professionals not product fans. I can recall very few posters that bad mouthed or thought Jim was running a scam. It's really getting old to hear that over and over. A few have, yes, but so what? Take into account a forum like the reduser group and you will see a 95% product fan base that continues to verbally undermine the professional production world. The "cheap camera will solve my problems" crowd will learn the hard way and will soon, hopefully, fizzle away back to their day jobs and sell their cams to other students.

 

I for one have lost interest in this camera, the posts about it and the company behind it. No offense to their hard work but this entire approach is extremely unprofessional and counters a desire to learn more or apply it to a production. If I get hired onto an HD show from here on out, I will, at this point, push to use an F23 or Gen., etc. instead... and would probably be better off for doing so overall.

 

(I don't buy the "Mike Hunt" thing either)

[Gary McClurg]

(I don't buy the "Mike Hunt" thing either)

 

Got a bad headache... so that's my excuse for the brain not working.. :lol: but what is the Mike Hunt thing?

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Got a bad headache... so that's my excuse for the brain not working.. :lol: but what is the Mike Hunt thing?

 

Gary, look at it like this: Mi-Kunt

[Gary McClurg]

Gary, look at it like this: Mi-Kunt

 

Thanks Matthew for the translation... I guess... :lol: ...

[David Mullen ASC]

Even if some of the ruder people were bad-mouthing RED, you don't descend to that level of discourse. It's not an excuse, going tit-for-tat.

 

Besides, if the worst sort of anti-RED posters are now quieter or converted, that behavior should be encouraged -- they should not be provoked, insulted, or shamed into speaking out again against RED. What purpose would that serve? It smacks of a "I told you so" smugness.

[Brian Drysdale]

I thought we'd moved on from this. Since the early production cameras were delivered there have been some good threads on the subject of digital cinema, so the crickets comment at the start was more to provoke than to start a serious thread.

[Tom Lowe]

Well there were quite a number of threads and posts trashing Jim and his camera, with thin speculation and no evidence. I think that's an historical fact.

 

Maybe you guys are right about not sinking to their level, but Hunt's attempt at humor talking about the sound of crickets wasn't that far over the line.

 

Okay, I'm gonna bail out of this thread before I piss off more people! :lol:

[Toby L Edwards]

Please delete this thread. If there was any "really good" footage comming from Red One it surly would have been posted here or at Reduser by now.

Evertthing els is just words. on and on and on. Don't tell me how great it is, just show me. Please I want to see it.

 

Toby

[Jay Taylor]

Hey guys,

 

I've noticed the silence, too. Honestly, the reason I haven't been posting in here anymore is because I'm not that thrilled with what I've seen from the Red.

 

It came out and the first posted videos were terrible, at least to my eye. Then they got a little better, then a little better, and then a little better. Some of the more recent stuff is really nice, but it just has this certain look to it that I don't care for at all. So I just gave up on this camera.

 

Also, I bought myself a Fries Mitchell, so? :lol:

 

I think I'll be more interested after their first chip upgrade, and once they can handle 4k 120+ fps to an improved, less compressed, redcode raw. We'll see!

 

 

Jay

 

P.S. One thing I've noticed is that anytime there's some supposedly jaw dropping footage shot with the Red, the people involved aren't allowed to post it, and they always say, "Trust us!" It gets really old after a while. Just something I've noticed!

Edited October 23, 2007 by Jay Taylor

[Tim Tyler]

Well there were quite a number of threads and posts trashing Jim and his camera, with thin speculation and no evidence...

 

Perhaps you could link to those specific threads and posts, quote the "trashing", and substantiate your claim. I'm tired of people calling this an "anti-Red forum".

[Seung Han]

Being extreme on either side just seems immature. I think the few examples of footage we've seen from cu's to landscapes with the different post work applied to them says this camera is versatile and again these are initial images. To declare across the board you won't use this camera ever seems a little near sighted. There will be a lot of people working with this camera in the next six months, let's be open minded and see what happens before jumping to conclusions. Nobody likes a hypocrite... :lol:

[David Mullen ASC]

It seems to me that a forum where members are one-third negative, one-third positive, and one-third neutral... is fairly healthy.

 

That also seems to be the ratio on the CML.

 

I agree that extremists are generally unhelpful and get far too much attention. It's like the screaming kid in the restaurant -- no one notices the several other children not screaming.

 

Of course, at RedUser.Net, it's 99% positive and 1% neutral, which is understandable given why the site exists (for users, afterall) but it's not realistic for a cinematography forum that is not extensively devoted to digital shooting (as most video forums are, for example.)

 

There has always been this fundamental difference in attitude: For video shooters, new digital cameras are seen as a step forward. For 35mm shooters, new digital cameras have traditionally been seen as a step backwards from what they now have with film, and then a step laterally. It's hard to get excited about a big step sideways! Only a few see it as a step forward.

 

This is only natural and the video shooters who are so excited by the latest cameras should not feel offended if film shooters aren't quite as excited, or seem more critical. You have to see things from their perspective: they generally love what they have now, so you really have to show them something much better for them to get excited. Now for some, RED is much better than film, but that's not a universal reaction among film shooters. Many more have the cynical attitude of "I really hope RED is as good as they say it is, or something soon will come along that is as good as film... IF I'm going to be forced to switch to digital someday anyway."

[Saul Rodgar]

I used to be a RED basher, but I saw the light. Did I turn to being a RED supporter? Not at all. The Gandhi-wisdom I gained was that ANY medium, whether RED, 35mm, 16mm, Super 8, camcorders, etc. are only as good as the lighting and people working with them. RED is a tool, nothing less, nothing more. I think it will have it's place in the world of cinema. I DON'T think it's a film killer.

 

NO, using a RED will not guarantee you a distribution deal or entrance to any festivals.

 

You got it!

That is the one thing that I got really annoyed at: All these people just saying how better than film cam a RED camera would be. The antagonism, the film is "soo gone" attitude. And this mostly by folks who couldn't light their way out of a paper bag, at least in my neck of the woods. People who would think that digital means no more film experience is needed to be a good cinematographer. People who think buying a RED camera automatically buys them a ticket in to the big leagues: THE BRAVE NEW WORLD OF DIGITAL CINEMA, where film is a thing of the past and damn if they are not going to prove everyone else who disagrees wrong. It is just like DJ'ing was hailed some years back: who needs to learn to play an instrument when here is the very best thing, a couple of turnatables and a mixer. You are a rock star, dude! Duh!

 

A tool, that is what the RED camera is, like a turntable, or an allen wrench. To be used when the job at hand requires it. Not the "end all be all" as some folks would like us to believe!

[David Mullen ASC]

It seems to me that a forum where members are one-third negative, one-third positive, and one-third neutral... is fairly healthy.

 

To be clear, by "negative" I don't mean nasty, unpleasant, cynical or a knee-jerk contrarian... I mean critical, skeptical, unconvinced... I don't think one-third being unpleasantly cynical is a good thing.

 

You know those movies that come out and some people say "I won't see that movie because I hate all the hype" -- and sometimes miss seeing a good movie? Don't confuse the hype with the camera. It seems to be a great camera from what I've seen; you just have to ignore some of those who are prone to hyperbole in their enthusiasms.

[Keith Walters]

Hmmmmmmm.... All the nay-sayers in here... All the non-believers.... All the fights... Camera comes out.... some amazing footage is being produced....

 

AND GUESS WHAT HAPPENS????? TA DAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

 

 

Chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp, chirp.....

 

Much the same thing happened, as I recall, with the CineAlta and the Genesis.

 

There are developments and trends that industry professionals need to know about, because they are, industry professionals, who by definition, make a living by knowing things that non-industry professionals tend not to know.

 

Obviously they need to know the things they should spend time and resources learning more about, but perhaps not so obviously, they also need to know what things they don't need to waste their precious time learning about.

 

With all the hype and extravagant predictions that were made for these supposedly "revolutionary" new ways of making movies, the professional was required to wade through an ungodly amount of chaff to get a few golden grains of information.

 

"Is this realistically going to impact on my career or not? Do I need to get up to speed with this technology or not?"

 

The usual comparisons with the virtual overnight demise of Steenbecks don't really hold water, because in general, the same people who used to edit on workprints are now the ones doing it on a computer screen. You still have to know how to edit, and that skill carries over perfectly well to the new technology.

 

Changing from film cameras to video cameras still retains a fair amount of the cinematographer's skill set, but there are a lot more new things to learn. So the question was: "Do I need to learn about this stuff?"

 

And the first time most of them saw "Star Wars Episode 2" or "Scary Movie 4" (the first public outing of the Genesis), the answer for most of them was "No! Well, not now at any rate."

Discussion tended to dry up immediately, because at that point most of them had all the information they needed!

 

The RED is far from being a bad camera, but most Industry Professionals now have a pretty good idea of how its going to perform, and whether they are ever going to "move in the same circles". A lot of the discussion is now being carried on by people who apparently have yet to learn that there is far more to making movies than knowing how to operate a camera!

[Keith Walters]

Well there were quite a number of threads and posts trashing Jim and his camera, with thin speculation and no evidence. I think that's an historical fact.

 

Much of this was simply a reaction to all the over-the-top "Come the Revolution" predictions, which were also largely based on "thin speculation and no evidence"

[Seung Han]

There has always been this fundamental difference in attitude: For video shooters, new digital cameras are seen as a step forward. For 35mm shooters, new digital cameras have traditionally been seen as a step backwards from what they now have with film, and then a step laterally. It's hard to get excited about a big step sideways! Only a few see it as a step forward.

 

That's a good point. It depends on which side of the fence the person has been working in to gauge their reaction to the Red or any other new capture device. I think the Red however is a big leap forward in terms of quality in relation to price so it is getting extreme reactions on both sides.

 

I actually like to read some of the critical posts on this site because it has tempered my enthusiasm into a more objective perpsective on the camera. It has made me focus more on the potential problems and issues I might face working with the camera. Sometimes I take it personally because I have put a deposit on it, but most of the posts seem critical in a good way so it forces me to face the possible limitations of the images and workflow. Like following Phil's arguments has made me understand things like debayering which I probably would have never gotten into but hopefully will help me utilize the camera better...

[Stephen Williams]

Well there were quite a number of threads and posts trashing Jim and his camera, with thin speculation and no evidence. I think that's an historical fact.

 

Maybe you guys are right about not sinking to their level, but Hunt's attempt at humor talking about the sound of crickets wasn't that far over the line.

 

Okay, I'm gonna bail out of this thread before I piss off more people! :lol:

 

Hi Tom,

 

First you said several dozen, now quite a no. There is a very big difference, I think you should apologise unless you can show me several dozen threads.

 

Stephen

[Phil Rhodes]

My concerns about Red were always much more to do with the attitude of the people than the technology, although it remains clear to me that they're selling as 4K something that isn't for any number of reasons. I am beginning to accept that the way to get ahead in the world is clearly to push the truth as close to a lie as you possibly can get away with. This seems to come under the heading of "salesmanship" and isn't something I'm interested in.

 

But the main issue I've always taken is their attitude. I've been accuse of "disrespecting" the project at least twice on this board and also elsewhere, when I've been given no reason to respect anything to do with it. I hate to sound like a scolding parent here, but respect is earned and cannot be bought - not from me, anyway.

 

As such the thing goes in the same bin as Apple Macs and beer - things which are unaccountably popular, but which emit a malodorous psychological funk of sufficient potency to put me off having anything to do with them.

 

Phil

[Matthew W. Phillips]

As such the thing goes in the same bin as Apple Macs and beer - things which are unaccountably popular, but which emit a malodorous psychological funk of sufficient potency to put me off having anything to do with them.

 

Phil

 

Phil, your devotion to utilizing every word of the English Lexicon is unwaivering... :D

[chris dye]

I don't want to fan the flames on this whole thing. Just wanted to post my feelings about all this, if anyone cares.

 

I have to agree somewhat with Matthew Phillips. My impression with this whole digital 'anti-film' thing (Red or not) is that everyone who is 'pro-digital' believes it's going to make it much easier for them to get that 3 picture studio deal or that it's going to 'level the playing field' or something. They seem to hate film simply because it's expensive. There's no denying film looks good, so it can't be how film looks to the pro-video, anti-film crowd. I'm sure their favorite movies were shot on film.

 

I think that's where a lot of the defensiveness and excitement seems to stem from, not necessarily how good the digital image has become (and it has). I remember seeing a documentary from 1992 that I thought was shot on professional video cameras, but was surprised it was shot using Hi 8 cameras. The ability to make 'films' cheap has been with us since the camcorder was invented (if not before even that). Some VHS can look good.

 

I used to hear the argument 'format doesn't matter'. Well, if format doesn't matter, why buy the expensive Red? There are video cameras out there that produce astounding images for under $1,000.

 

'Real' movies cost millions of dollars, whether it's shot with digital cameras or film cameras. Even on the low budget end of moviemaking, I don't think a $500,000 movie suddenly becomes a $50,000 movie just because you decide to use a Red camera. What I see when I look at 35mm budgets and 'digital' budgets of the same movie, are costs cut in all departments. I've seen budgets where directors get a $20,000 salary for the 35mm budget and a $5,000 or less salary for the 'digital' one. Same with the DP. What's with that? Also, I get the impression grip/lighting isn't as much a concern for the 'digital' budget. In other words, all thoughts 'professional' suddenly fly out the window when it comes to digital (at least in the low budget realm). Grip/Lighting? Who needs that? That is not helping the low budget digital realm.

 

I still feel as strongly as Spielberg does about film. HD and some of the Red footage I've seen, is impressive. It's definitely getting harder to tell the difference, but I'll say this:

 

I was watching a recent movie shot on professional HD (via my sony HD home theater projector). I knew this movie was shot on HD. Being pro-film, I was surprised when I actually thought to myself as I watched the movie shot on HD 'wow, that looks pretty good', then I put in another movie to watch that was shot on film (not intending to compare formats, I just wanted to watch the move) and I was blown away by how good this film looked. It was striking and it was shot IN THE MID 70's. It immediately reminded me why film is still better. As good as HD does look, something shot over 30 years ago still blows away these 'state of the art' digital cameras. Just my opinion.

 

I used to be so anti-video, it's crazy, but I'm warming to digital cameras now, no doubt. Never warmed to the Canon XL-1 or others of its ilk, though. I'm sure those out there that upgraded to HD from the Canon XL-1 think their footage shot on the XL-1 doesn't look quite so good anymore.

 

I love digital post production. Unbelievable what you can do on a computer nowadays, but lately my feelings towards the whole film/HD digital thing has come to this:

 

'Who has the energy anymore'.

Edited October 25, 2007 by chris dye