Jump to content

L.A.R.T. under NDA


Stephen Williams

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

The test was organized by a bunch of owners. RED people were only involved to the extent of their normal customer service involvement, answering questions, general tech support, whatnot. And they weren't physically there at the test, other than Ted S. stopping by to say hello on Saturday afternoon and answer some questions. RED really had nothing to do with L.A.R.T. itself, honestly.

 

The testing and the post work was done by the owners, unsupervised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Correct.

 

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

 

OK camera owners do have a vested interest in the camera performing well, as they have a horse in the race. It's a shame that the results are kept secret.

 

I have noticed some people always talk about NDA's, so people with less experience think they are very important. One would hope they could just show examples of their work and let that speak for itself.

 

Stephen I know lots of secrets but people trust me without making me sign a NDA Williams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I'm sure it's not a matter of keeping the results secret, I think they haven't gotten around to posting them yet, being busy probably. I mean, what few lighting tests I shot haven't been posted yet -- I'd have to find Lucas at Assimilate and work with him for a few hours. I only had a chance to glance at the files at his Scratch workstation.

 

No, I'm not such a fan of NDA's myself either -- seems more and more common these days for some reason. Steve Gibby is a business owner plus a writer of articles on video production, and I suspect that he wants some control over the flow of L.A.R.T. information since his company organized the test, so his name will be associated with it. That's his choice. I'm a little more laid-back about such things, but I don't have the reputation of a production company to worry about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was told several times by several key personel that we will only be posting positive not negative results except where comparisons are necessary. RED will receive all bug reports/footage that needs to be dealt with and the general public will receive information on what the camera can do, not can't do. At least that was my understanding from multiple conversations and announcements. But that is also to my knowledge only the organizer's policy not explicitely expressed within the NDA, unless the NDA we signed on set was different from the one emailed earlier.

 

Someone higher than myself can confirm or deny that.

Edited by Gavin Greenwalt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The NDA was pretty ordinary -- all it says is that Gibcor has the right to control the information released about the tests, including clips. Nothing about only talking about positive things.

 

I wasn't there for the whole weekend, but the only thing I heard was that if you discovered a possible problem, you should first discuss it privately with the RED developers to get their response and feedback before discussing it publically.

 

But there was no rule that you couldn't discuss problems publically (beyond the NDA restrictions) -- just that it would be professional courtesy to discuss it first with the RED team to see what light they could shed on the issue. Makes sense, especially since the problem may have been due to the user using the wrong settings or something, so it may save you some embarrassment if you didn't just start publically talking about a screwed-up shot or something that turned out to be your own fault.

 

Yes, there is a tone among some owners to emphasize the positive publically and work on the negative privately, but in some ways, that's in the nature of beta testing a new product, which is essentially what the early owners are doing for RED, willingly. I do worry a little when it goes overboard and you have a few people on the RED User site who have never used the camera telling actual users that they are "wrong" about the problems they are encountering.

 

No product is perfect and ultimately all flaws become apparent to the public over time. By this I mean, truth will out, so don't lose sleep worrying about potential cover-ups because they always fail, at least when it comes to filmmaking equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Its dissapointing to see people jump to negative conclusions before all the facts are in. Repeatedly.

 

R.

 

Hi Ruairi,

 

I don't think we were. Here we like to ask questions here to get the facts, then make our conclusions based on the balanced information we receive. When we only receive good news, we question how accurate the report is.

 

When I read threads by Finner & Mac I attach far more importance to what they say, than a good news only poster.

 

Several of the current points of discussion & camera upgrades are points that have been raised on this board in the past, unfortunately they were ignored.

 

My best

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I completely agree. All footage should be carefully sifted through to ensure that your results are actually valid and not contaminated by the operator. Usually when I do any sort of benchmark or test I have to throw out the first 2 or 3 full run throughs just because one single result was accidentally botched. I know we screwed up some testst at LART because I was responsible for at least 2 of those screw-ups myself. :)

 

--

 

I found the relevant quote it's not in the NDA it's in the LART Info.doc sent out along with the roster. But it's under the sub header "NDA".

 

Our goal is to find the working advantages of shooting 4K with RED ONE cameras. We are not interested in posting to the public what does not work but rather provide professional informed proactive feedback to Red Digital Cinema for continued improvements to their products. To this end, the NDA specifically outlines that GibCOr will control all footage and results of LART including the release of any and all information to the public.

 

I hope this in of itself doesn't violate the NDA (Is quoting the terms of an NDA a breach of an NDA) but it is my judgement that that statement falls under "Testing parameters" which is important from a public standpoint along with what lenses, lights and exposure settings were used. My interpretation of that was that we wouldn't be posting any images of bugs and how to reproduce them. And I'm also guessing that's where people got the idea that the LART NDA was written by RED as that sub-clause is very favorable to RED--which was not the case. LART was independent.

 

Just to re-emphasis. LART was carried out completely independently of RED by RED camera owners and interested parties and retaining the right to decide what is and is not shown is not inherently the same as intentionally withholding damaging results. Especially in the case of a few tests where we evaluated pre-release technology.

Edited by Gavin Greenwalt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you did say "I think it's time to buy a Viper."

 

If that ain't leaping to conclusions, then I don't speak English verry goodly.

 

But look I agree with you - a lot of the cheerleading going on is painfully tedious, and I believe I was one of the first (if not the first) to post a thread on reduser discussing the problems with early images. I'm a reservation holder, but my jury is still slightly out. At least till I see some anamorphic footage. I'm shooting another short soon while waiting for this writers strike to blow over, and even with the ability to shoot Red, I'll probably do it on 35mm anamorphic.

 

Anyway, It's not my intention to antagonise you, and I do think you've posted a lot of interesting and valuable stuff.

 

Best,

R.

 

 

 

Hi Ruairi,

 

I don't think we were. Here we like to ask questions here to get the facts, then make our conclusions based on the balanced information we receive. When we only receive good news, we question how accurate the report is.

 

When I read threads by Finner & Mac I attach far more importance to what they say, than a good news only poster.

 

Several of the current points of discussion & camera upgrades are points that have been raised on this board in the past, unfortunately they were ignored.

 

My best

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But look I agree with you - a lot of the cheerleading going on is painfully tedious, and I believe I was one of the first (if not the first) to post a thread on reduser discussing the problems with early images.

 

Hey now! I think my "there is some really bad de-mosaic artifacts on the pumpkin" were the first image criticism of RED. Let's review the archives before jumping to concusions about who was critical first. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Well, you did say "I think it's time to buy a Viper."

 

R.

 

Hi Ruairi,

 

A large advertising agency wants me to shoot some commercials for them on a Viper, it looks like it's cheaper to buy than rent as required over the next 6 months. In 6 months time I may well have a Red, but today I can't there back ordered & I don't have a reservation

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"one of the..."

 

Actually I'm bored and had nothing better to do... so let the record stand that it seems the crown for first negative critique award goes to Jim Arthurs on 10-03-2006 where he noticed some fixed pattern noise in a quicktime. It would be another week before the first uncompressed footage would be released though.

 

ok ok.. I'm done now.

 

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I'm bored and had nothing better to do... so let the record stand that it seems the crown for first negative critique award goes to Jim Arthurs on 10-03-2006 where he noticed some fixed pattern noise in a quicktime. It would be another week before the first uncompressed footage would be released though.

 

ok ok.. I'm done now.

 

:D

 

Er... I meant early images when the camera was actually released (not that it matters!)

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
All digital sensors -- CMOS, CCD or whatever -- are blue-starved, making them roughly daylight balanced.

OK, this is interesting. Wouldn't there be a fundamental difference between three chip and single chip designs?

 

With a single chip, the choice of the dye densities used in the Bayer mask could be used to adjust the balance. With three chips, unless you put some ND between the prism and red and green chips, the only control you have is where along the spectrum the dichroics put their cuts. The silicon may be the same, but your options in compensating for it should be different.

 

The comparison with early film is kinda the other way around. Film started out with silver halides that are exclusively blue sensitive. Silicon chips have more sensitivity in red and green than in blue, so they need the extra blue of daylight.

 

But what happened with film is that they discovered chemicals that could be added to the emulsion that would absorb green (ortho) and later red (pan), and re-emit the energy as blue. Maybe if we could find something that worked the other way, absorbing blue and shifting the energy to wavelengths that work more efficiently with the chips, that would solve the balance problem. It might be something that could be added to the silicon, like doping to make N and P regions, or it may be a layer between the chip and the Bayer mask, designed to boost only the blue photosites. Lotsa fun, but of course this is just -- well --- blue sky speculation. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I should mention that Jim confirmed that the NDA was not from red.

 

Its dissapointing to see people jump to negative conclusions before all the facts are in. Repeatedly.

 

 

Please explain, this statement seems pretty explicit:

"NDA

It is quite simple - RED provided LART with as yet unreleased RED equipment and support with a request that we not release the info or test results until after RED's official announcements..."

Edited by Daniel Sheehy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please explain, this statement seems pretty explicit:

"NDA

It is quite simple - RED provided LART with as yet unreleased RED equipment and support with a request that we not release the info or test results until after RED's official announcements..."

 

 

You want ME to explain it?

 

Ok I'll give it a go, but since I can't verify it, it's pure speculation on my part.

 

Red supplied LART with unreleased equipment and REQUESTED they not release info on this equipment until official announcements - knowing that Gibby had signed the LART testers to an NDA, and knowing hey could trust his word, since he appears to be an avid supporter of Red, and a fairly reputable guy.

 

That's my wild guess, and nobody comes out of it a liar if my guess is true, but what the hell do I know? You asked me to explain, that's all I got.

 

Actually I'm starting to believe that Red was a hoax after all. There is no camera, and Jim Jannard is not even human - he's one of those 7 foot tall shape shifting lizards that David Icke talked about - you know, the ones that rule the world, and eat children. The queen is one, George Lucas is one, and so is Kris Kristofferson.

 

If my disemboweled corpse is washed up to shore over the next few weeks, you can take my speculation as fact.

 

R.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Daniel is not the only one to see an inherent contradiction here. I asked earlier whether Red was involved at all with these tests and Jim says a no, yet then it turns out that Red provided them with unreleased equipment, which does mean a clear involvement in my book I'm afraid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel is not the only one to see an inherent contradiction here. I asked earlier whether Red was involved at all with these tests and Jim says a no, yet then it turns out that Red provided them with unreleased equipment, which does mean a clear involvement in my book I'm afraid.

I was reading through the LART thread on reduser (which BTW is incredible hard to track... the mods seem to love moving and reorganising threads in the middle of the action...) when I came across those statements. They weren't unusual at all, until you put them in the context of this thread.

 

There were other gear suppliers who apparently had prototype gear there, but didn't want an NDA, preferring the free publicity.

(Sorry, I can't find the link for that.. it seems to have gotten lost when the LART thread was split in 2 and moved...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Daniel is not the only one to see an inherent contradiction here. I asked earlier whether Red was involved at all with these tests and Jim says a no, yet then it turns out that Red provided them with unreleased equipment, which does mean a clear involvement in my book I'm afraid.

 

 

Wrong conclusion. Any company that knows that a large number of their current and potential customers are getting together very near to their company headquarters would be foolish not to drop by and offer some new insight and items. In fact I was very suprised in what I felt was a very small showing by red, I would have thought more representitives of the company would have shown up. Red was not involved in any real manner in testing though.

Edited by Daren Findling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Wrong conclusion. Any company that knows that a large number of their current and potential customers are getting together very near to their company headquarters would be foolish not to drop by and offer some new insight and items. In fact I was very suprised in what I felt was a very small showing by red, I would have thought more representitives of the company would have shown up. Red was not involved in any real manner in testing though.

 

Hi Daren,

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

This might just be semantics, but I think that offering unreleased equipment and presumably wanting feedback implies a certain level of involvement, after all you just don't hand new stuff out to anyone and tells them to do with this whatever and not get back to you about what they thought of it. I am not implying that Red is taking a controlling interest in these tests, but I do not see the need for them to distance themselves from these tests like they when very clearly they were involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Forum Sponsors

BOKEH RENTALS

Film Gears

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

CINELEASE

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...