Redcine is here (for all)

[Daniel Sheehy]

I've noticed that actually going back and reading the original post in this thread appears to be too challenging for some commenters here; perhaps this will assist.

My bad, it should have read 'He' instead of 'You'.

 

The point still stands.

 

In what way was the moderator removing links in a post that violated forum protocol, uneven?

[Daniel Sheehy]

And in case it's not clear:

 

If this forum is really for and about objective discussion of the Red One camera and a resource for cinematographers and others to assist them in working with the camera and evaluating its pros and cons, then the content of the original post (links to the official Red forums announcing the release of RedCine) seem like exactly the kind of valuable information that should be posted here.

Absolutely, however, it is not proper to simply post links... it could be spam, inappropriate or who-knows what else... and the only way to find out what would be by clicking on it.

 

You could argue that just posting links without some accompanying discussion is some breach of the forum rules (there is that teensy inconsequential problem that as far as I can tell the forum rules don't actually say that anywhere) but surely, if support and aid to independent non-red-fanboy users of the camera is the fundemental purpose of this forum then surely the correct action was to firstly leave the links intact and then secondly reprimand the hapless Original Poster via a followup message in the thread, or perhaps via a PM.

 

Kneejerk out-of-hand deletion of the links by a moderator strongly suggest to me an agenda other than one trying to support users of the camera. That is all.

Having been involved with the moderation of other discission forums.... all I can assure you that Tim is a pretty decent moderator. Its not an easy job, and with the volume of posts that pour through a place like this, it is un-reasonable to expect the kid-glove treatment for each and every mis-directed post. It is the user's responsibility to ensure that they're not posting in the grey areas.

 

In support of the above statement, I'll point out that this forum does not subscribe to the 'let's delete things we don't like' philosophy, which we all have seen on certain other forums. There have been threads deleted here... but only in pretty exceptional circumstances.

Edited November 26, 2007 by Daniel Sheehy

[Will Earl]

Thoughts after using REDCINE...

 

Reasonably well put together little IO app, although it did start to freak out after about 20 minutes - which isn't unexpected from a WIP package. Aside from that it does what it's suppose to do which is process .r3d files.

 

Didn't look to see what it's batch processing capabilities are like, so hopefully you can process a bunch of clips at once.

 

Personally I don't like tools that take up over your desktop, I want to have a app open and also be able to see my email, the web, a command line, etc at the same time. Also support for multiple monitors would be cool - controls on one side, viewer on the other.

 

Maybe further development of REDCINE could result in providing users with a simple finishing tool - add some better colour-correction controls, masks, 2d-tracking and you could have REDGRADE! :P

[Mike Brennan]

That well respected Kodak employee (whose name escapes me) regularly posted links on the Cinematography.com HD forum to numerous Kodak sites. Despite a protest from me that the frequency of the links was inappropriate and creating noise, he wasn't curtailed.

 

So I don't understand that it is considered wrong for a forum member, on the RED sub forum, to link to the RED website that has a free download of software.

 

 

Please clarify.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[David Mullen ASC]

That well respected Kodak employee (whose name escapes me) regularly posted links on the Cinematography.com HD forum to numerous Kodak sites. Despite a protest from me that the frequency of the links was inappropriate and creating noise, he wasn't curtailed.

 

Poor John Pytlak died of cancer last year, posting here right up to the end from his bed. His posts were always full of information for people. This was a guy who won a Technical Oscar for his film technology and we were lucky to have him here as a regular poster.

 

I think Tim just objected to a post of a link to another competing filmmaking forum with no explanation, no text surrounding the link, which sort of crosses the line -- it suggests "just move this conversion elsewhere". It's a matter of tone.

 

John's posts were always full of explanations, and the links were for further information.

[John Holland]

I feel i must say something about Mike Brennans post its totally out of order a comlete wanker and i hope i never bump into here sorry from England.

[Stephen Williams]

Despite a protest from me that the frequency of the links was inappropriate and creating noise, he wasn't curtailed.

 

Mike Brennan

 

Mike,

 

Do you have any links to your protest ? or any links to an inappropriate posts made by the late Mr Pytlak.

 

Stephen

 

Edit After searching I find very few of John's 3499 posts were in the HD forums here at cinematography.com

[Michel Hafner]

My bad, it should have read 'He' instead of 'You'.

The point still stands.

In what way was the moderator removing links in a post that violated forum protocol, uneven?

I see no violation of protocol as defined here:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?act=boardrules

When the complaint was that the meaning of the links was unclear and it's too much to ask to mentally add the thread title and the links together it would be appropriate to add some text to the links (such as: you can download the software HERE and a clip for testing it HERE) instead of deleting the links and leave a pointless corpse behind, IMHO. ;)

PS. Oh, I see reduser.net is competition so you can't link to it. One of the two links was to www.red.com. Is that competition too?

Edited November 26, 2007 by Michel Hafner

[Stephen Williams]

I see no violation of protocol as defined here:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?act=boardrules

When the complaint was that the meaning of the links was unclear and it's too much to ask to mentally add the thread title and the links together it would be appropriate to add some text to the links (such as: you can download the software HERE and a clip for testing it HERE) instead of deleting the links and leave a pointless corpse behind, IMHO. ;)

 

Hi Michel,

 

Clearly Tim the owner of this site did.

 

Stephen

[Daniel Sheehy]

PS. Oh, I see reduser.net is competition so you can't link to it. One of the two links was to www.red.com. Is that competition too?

If you have a look around, you'll notice that there is no objection, in general, to people posting links to either reduser.net, or red.com, so long as it is part of a useful contribution to a current discussion, going on here.

[Mike Brennan]

Mike,

 

Do you have any links to your protest ? or any links to an inappropriate posts made by the late Mr Pytlak.

 

Stephen

 

Edit After searching I find very few of John's 3499 posts were in the HD forums here at cinematography.com

 

 

Stephen,

 

The complaint was made to Tim in a PM and I think also more subtly on the forum as I recall some spirited responses.

 

To reiterate, it was the frequency of the links to Kodak sites that I felt were inappropriate not the posts per se and the point is such linking was allowed when a link to RED.com has been denied.

 

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Mike Brennan]

I feel i must say something about Mike Brennans post its totally out of order a comlete wanker and i hope i never bump into here sorry from England.

 

 

John,

 

And to all readers if it hit a nerve I'm sorry, I obviously didn't recall that the person I had professional respect for and described as "well respected", Mr Pytlak had passed away.

 

 

The point of the post was seeking clarification from Tim on his policy, not a critisism of any forum member.

 

 

That John Holland responded by nothing more than being discourteous to me is regrettable under the circumstances, so lets forget it.

 

 

Mike Brennan

[Michel Hafner]

If you have a look around, you'll notice that there is no objection, in general, to people posting links to either reduser.net, or red.com, so long as it is part of a useful contribution to a current discussion, going on here.

And how exactly was my contribution not useful? How exactly did I violate any terms? It sure is useless now after the moderator's intervention. It was not in the beginning if you are interested in Red and testing aspects of it yourself.

[David Mullen ASC]

Are we going to nitpick a decision to eliminate one post for another forty posts??? We've had examples of links in posts since then so clearly there are ways of making posts that are acceptable to Tim. Just don't make a post which is just a link to another filmmaking forum discussion group.

[Michel Hafner]

I got the message. I won't post here anymore.

[Stephen Williams]

I got the message. I won't post here anymore.

 

Hi Michel,

 

Your quite welcome to post here, if you have something to add to any links you provide.

 

Stephen

[NormNelson]

Gee, hostile cinematographers, generally rare breed I've found, anyway I just found out about this

Red camera as I was interested because of the PL mount and light weight along with the fact is will

shoot 60fps slow motion. Perfect for my wildlife needs. I'm shooting and lugging a 35 Arri around

and spending a ton on film and transfers. I'm sorry digital is here but it is and I have to adapt

which is quite a challenge for an old guy. This Red deal looks pretty good for going into

say eagle country and filming behavior. I do fear that doing self follow focus using the electronic

viewfinder might be real hard with a long lens, say a 600. Filming anything flying is hard enough

but in l6mm you can do pretty well, it would sure be an assest if the red camera was light,

had a clear viewfinder, and could handle our film lenses with ease. I'll probably wait til spring

and then see how it all falls out. I will continue to visit here to see what you experts are saying

about this camera, meanwhile I will learn what Raw and 4K means while I'm loading my

old Arri IIC thank you very much

 

Norm

[John Sprung]

... it would sure be an assest if the red camera was light, had a clear viewfinder, ....

The Red is reasonably light. Where you really save on weight is with the memory cards, though they're expensive. Transferring them to tape in the wilderness -- anything you do with tape in an environment that isn't clean and air conditioned -- can be trouble. As for the viewfinder, I very much doubt that a mirror shutter would ever be added to the Red. The cost and weight it would add just don't fit their style. I remember in the old days there were pellicle mirror reflex zoom lenses for 16mm, not sure if the same was ever made for 35. The other alternative would be to schlep a good quality monitor, but that means both weight and power problems. You're doing the right thing by hanging on to the Arri and keeping an eye on the Red.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Ruairi Robinson]

The Red is reasonably light. Where you really save on weight is with the memory cards, though they're expensive. Transferring them to tape in the wilderness -- anything you do with tape in an environment that isn't clean and air conditioned -- can be trouble. As for the viewfinder, I very much doubt that a mirror shutter would ever be added to the Red. The cost and weight it would add just don't fit their style. I remember in the old days there were pellicle mirror reflex zoom lenses for 16mm, not sure if the same was ever made for 35. The other alternative would be to schlep a good quality monitor, but that means both weight and power problems. You're doing the right thing by hanging on to the Arri and keeping an eye on the Red.

 

-- J.S.

 

Why would you need to transfer them to tape in those conditions?

 

In fact, why would you need to at all if you can avoid it...?

[David Mullen ASC]

He's probably thinking of downloading full CF cards on location, which could be a challenge in the wilderness until the RED DRIVE is available.

[John Sprung]

Why would you need to transfer them to tape in those conditions?

 

In fact, why would you need to at all if you can avoid it...?

The cards are expensive, you'd want to re-use them rather than buy enough for months of shooting in the wilderness. Of course, I'm assuming the OP means to camp out there for extended periods, not do it as a daily commute from civilization.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.