Jump to content

Red - it's grotesquely incompetent


Phil Rhodes

Recommended Posts

  • Premium Member
I think this proves the technical point rather elegantly:

 

http://gunshotfx.com/red/

 

There is only the tiniest, most microscopic and insignificant resolution increase in the direct "4K" over the resampled version. Ergo, it's not a 4K camera - it's not even a 3K camera. It's right there for everyone to look at.

 

Needless to say, marketeers are rarely dissuaded by mere facts.

 

Phil

To me this proves nothing. The reflections in the eyes are the only content in the frame with any energy in the top octave. Fill the frame with an evenly lit 18% gray card, and you can down and up convert as much as you want without seeing any difference in resolution. Shoot the same chart on all the cameras if you want a valid and quantiftiable test.

 

There are times, and shooting a tight closeup is one of them, when you usually don't want the full resolution of the system you're using. From this, Tiffen makes a living. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 163
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Premium Member

And imagine if it had a good script. No one would care if it was red white or blue. The camera package is still the cheapest port of any film production. Imagine if a hammer cost $40k? No one would build a house. But I've been in some amazing houses built out of $30 hammers. Funny, I never asked them what hammer they used. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

> You can't go by some heavily-compressed clip you found on the web to judge a camera anyway.

 

They're PNGs derived from PNGs; they're completely uncompressed - as it says very clearly on the page. I must question your qualification to comment on this topic if you don't understand basic data storage formats.

 

And as if your thesis on financial motivation hadn't been discredited thoroughly enough before you even presented it, I have personally witnessed people do some catastrophically stupid things on multimillion dollar productions, leading me to the conclusion that I don't care how much money you have if you are a cloth fool.

 

> The reflections in the eyes are the only content in the frame with any energy in the top octave

 

Yes. Exactly. And why is that? Because the damn thing doesn't resolve any more detail than that! Elephant standing in corner, people.

 

Phil

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I love when they try to sell me speaker cable worth more money then the speakers I just bought . . . or my personal fav. - the $10,000 silver 6' speaker cable (for a pair).

 

 

I came across a company that will deep freeze your speaker cables for you.....

 

http://www.russandrews.com/article-Deep-Cr...ent-dctinfo.htm

 

jb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> You can't go by some heavily-compressed clip you found on the web to judge a camera anyway.

 

They're PNGs derived from PNGs; they're completely uncompressed - as it says very clearly on the page. I must question your qualification to comment on this topic if you don't understand basic data storage formats.

 

Yeah but that doesn't mean they did a good job shooting those images. Like you said, you have seen people do stupid things on multimillion dollar productions. Who tells you that the people who shot those images knew what they were doing? or that they really DIDN"T compressed them. Gullible, are ya?

 

So before you start questioning other people's qualifications to comment on subjects, go shoot your own tests!

 

Ever heard of freedom of speech?

Edited by saulie rodgar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the 5D uses a larger sensor, but despite this the results still aren't surprising considering the RED uses a Bayer-filtered 4K sensor, and the Canon a 12K sensor (~12K / 3 for R,G,B = ~4K). I chose the 5D image as the control because I knew it could create a true 4K image from a Bayer-filtered 12K sensor.

 

The Canon 5D is 4368 x 2912 so "4.3K" Bayer, no more no less "true" 4K than the Red, whatever else you might say.

 

-Sam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Ever heard of freedom of speech?

 

Yes, it means you are free to be wrong and I am free to point it out.

 

Your sarcastic self-righteousness is despicable, sir. As is your belief that YOUR opinion about a camera (and pretty much anything else) is the only valid one. I have read enough of your intolerant views regarding this and other subjects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
surely that makes no difference? They're still the same image having gone through two different processes.

Actually it makes a big difference. If there's not much resolution in the actual image content, you won't see much difference. That's why standardized test charts are used rather than real world images. In this image, the reflections in the eyes are the only thing that shows the change.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
apples and oranges; you would surely comment on a marble tabletop or a nice wood floor. The "thingliness of the thing" is what is in question, and in this sense the camera is more than the tool, it's the medium itself.

 

 

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so". - "Hamlet" by William

Shakespeare (Act II, Scene II).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah but that doesn't mean they did a good job shooting those images. Like you said, you have seen people do stupid things on multimillion dollar productions. Who tells you that the people who shot those images knew what they were doing? or that they really DIDN"T compressed them. Gullible, are ya?

 

So before you start questioning other people's qualifications to comment on subjects, go shoot your own tests!

 

Ever heard of freedom of speech?

Regarding this, I say please try this test yourself! Or, if you supply me with "better" 4K images, I will be happy to redo the test and post the results.

 

Look, I'm not here saying the camera is no good. Far from it! I think the camera is fantastic. I consider it a perfectly decent 2K camera, which isn't bad at all considering its price.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Canon 5D is 4368 x 2912 so "4.3K" Bayer, no more no less "true" 4K than the Red, whatever else you might say.

Yes, you're right. I should have made that more clear in my post. I needed another 4K image from a camera using a similar sensor design to use as a control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
So Phil are you saying RED is the Monster Cable of cameras? :)

Watch what you say about Monster Cable!

 

I have saved more people's bacon with that stuff than I care to remember. It has such an incredibly low electrical resistance that you can make super-long battery cables that have negligible voltage loss.

 

The first time I used it was for a fretful client who showed me a quote for (if I recall correctly) about $4,000 to provide a 24 Volt lithium battery pack so he could operate an Arri 435 on some gigantic crane affair where the couldn't easily change the batteries. He wasn't so concerned about the price, only the fact that it would take a month to source and the shoot was two days away.

 

I just happened to have a flyer from my regular parts supplier announcing that they were now stocking "generic" monster-type cable, and the fattest stuff they had was 9AWG for $150 for a 50 metre roll. 9 AWG has 783 0.1mm strands per conductor, so you could probably start a truck motor with that stuff!

 

I knocked up a pair of 25 Metre cables that same afternoon and they worked perfectly. In fact you could connect the two together and it still worked.

 

Since then I've made countless similar cables for people. But I would hate to think how much it would have cost to make a cable like that it it hadn't been subsidised by all the Hi Fi nuts out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I don't really understand this thread.

 

On one hand we continually get reminded that the average cinema release print supposedly has less than 1,500 lines resolution horizontally, but then on the other hand people keep arguing about whether the RED has 2K, 3K or 4K resolution. If release prints are that bad, who cares?

 

(However I should point out that I worked for a major film processor for a while, and I spent a lot of time in the QC screening room watching sample reels. The difference between a 2K DI and a 4K is painfully obvious, so I don't know where these people get their information).

 

I really think the real show-stopper is going to be dynamic range.

 

And here I find many of the arguments equally bafflling. To me the test is quite simple: Suppose I give you an array of say 15 LEDs each of which gets progressively one stop brighter from left to right, and which I have independently verified by two or more separate methods that they do actually follow this law.

 

I don't care how you do it, or what what post-production jiggery-pokery or lookup tables you use, the task is to clearly image as many of the LEDs as you can. I am not interested in MTFs or any other such creative accountancy, or how much contrast they have and so on, all I would be interested in is, can I clearly see that glowing white square, or can I only see a white blob.

 

I would like to see this done with film as well as a variety of digital cameras. The aim is to simply demonstrate the very best that a camera can do in that situation. Because in the real world, that is what you are going to encounter: extremes of lighting you cannot control, and you just have to do the best you can with what you have available.

 

Failing that, I shall reserve judgement until "Wanted" hits the cinemas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Wasn't it Paul Bruening asking for a bit of controversy yesterday? Here you go Paul, almost on cue.

 

James.

Isn't it incredible? I stopped visiting this site because the posts had dried up to nothing. I was actually going to have a look at REDuser when I clicked the wrong button and wound up here!

 

There's not really much we haven't heard before though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While my monster cable reference was a joke, there is a serious side to it to. Today most folks seem to be taken by marketing. They absorb marketing and simply make it part of their syntax, without any real question, and often without any personal experience or testing of the equipment they talk about. That ca...

 

snip

 

I guess...

 

But still, the reality is, Red customers are not getting fully functional cameras and are in fact working as testers for Red, regardless of what people's expectations have come to be based on marketing. Red has some huge wonderful imaging chip(set), OK. But, as a camera, it is not fully functional and by the time is IS, I'm guessing there will be other cameras that have similar design features.

 

We'll see...

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
> The Canon 5D is 4368 x 2912 so "4.3K" Bayer, no more no less "true" 4K than the Red, whatever else you might say.

 

Amazing how it looks so much sharper than Red, really, isn't it!

I think digital stills cameras look so much better than all current digital film cameras. A friend directly compared the Red to a Canon and the DSLR had a much nice picture. Except for its resolution, which I think is adequate, so far I'm not impressed with Red. Or any other digital film camera for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I guess...

 

But still, the reality is, Red customers are not getting fully functional cameras and are in fact working as testers for Red, regardless of what people's expectations have come to be based on marketing.

 

There are three sides to any story. I have spoken to a few RED owners who are very happy with their purchase and who know that it's always about the next upgrade but knew that going in and accept that. I also know from reading first hand stories of owners who are unhappy that they are beta testers. And I know some that simply sold their camera, and others who cancelled their order.

 

The third side of the story is about perceptions and reality. There are many manufactures out there with proven track records. They have a large R&D department, and are working today on equipment and ideas they will release in three years or so. And then there are the small, mom and pop companies that have sprung up in the last ten years. Technology, manufacturing processes, and new ways of marketing have allowed that. Personally, I would have a tough time buying any equipment that has no history, no real testing, and no reputation. Hence why I never had any interest in RED. And that is part three.

 

I was under the impression that RED made it clear that they would get production lines out but that there would be bumps and that as long as you stood by, they'd take you on the trip of ever improving the product. I think that is only fair. Regardless of the price, you have to stand by what you sell.

 

But along the way, and I've said to this the RED people before, they made a mistake. They tried to use the web as their method of dissemination. That is always a double edge sword. It allows you to have one on one feedback with your customer and get your info out for free, but it also puts you on record. And in this world, put yourself on record and folks will tear you apart.

 

Panasonic learned this when they had one of their sales folks act as a web representative. She gave good information on numerous websites, but was caught in being put on record, and instead of letting it go, she fought complaints and misinformation online in public forums, and in doing so, hurt the company, rather than helped it.

 

For every one person who likes your product, you will loose ten because of one 'belief' whether true or not, that says your product has problems, or doesn't live up to expectations. The web has become a very influential medium in the case of electronics. It was recently reported that instant Messaging and Blogging experienced double digit growth for purchase influence of electronics at 22% and 21.5%, respectively, this year compared to two years ago. That is a more powerful statistic than TV's influence. Having a website with information is good, as you get to present the information the way you want, end of story. Using bulletin boards to disseminate info, while good on the surface, soon has folks tearing at everything you say and do, to the point that a large group grows to hate your product and with that turns off many others who might have looked at it otherwise.

 

That link Phil points to does incredible damage, whether it true or not. And there are other examples out there and a lot of web chatter that is very negative towards RED because they made public statements that put them on record. It was REDs need to communicate openly on the web rather than through traditional methods that created a need to prove them wrong at every turn. Had RED not taking such a grass roots approach to their marketing, I don't think such sites would exist today. Things would have been said as they are when large manufactures have problems, but that is where would have ended just as discussions do fade away eventually. REDs discussions of problems, potential problems, and misgivings don't, rather they continue and continue to grow.

 

I believe RED is about to face a lash back scenario in a big way namely because they decided to try to use the web as a test ground for marketing and a feedback forum, which by itself is not bad, just always leads to bad if you don't pull the plug in time on free wheeling dissemination of information. All the research on the subject shows it is a dangerous game and the smart manufactures know not to do it.

 

Other than Panasonics blunder on the web, you will not find other companies having a voice on the web other than in the traditional website, and press release method. They are smarter than that.

 

A very good executive at one of the major manufactures once said to me this:

 

"The "high road", is the proper and credible place for manufacturers, as a foundation of Brand Equity. When failed strategy leads to a manufacturer finding themselves painted into an untenable corner is when "low road" behavior - including shrill disparagement - can begin. Since strong players ACT strong, it's not unusual to find the most strident disparagement ("propaganda", to use your term) coming from the weakest player."

 

In other words, the louder folks are always the ones with the weaker product. That is not a statement about RED, just a statement about manufactures in general. Look at who is doing well, and who is out screaming all the time and you will see which companies are successful and which will not be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three sides to any story. I have spoken to a few RED owners who are very happy with their purchase and who know that it's always about the next upgrade but knew that going in and accept that. I also know from reading first hand stories of owners who are unhappy that they are beta testers. And I know some that simply sold their camera, and others who cancelled their order.

Far be it for me to tell someone they're not happy when they say they are, but I'm guessing there's a fair amount of "happy" Red customers who base their happiness in part on things that don't have to do with holding a fully functional camera system in their hands.

But along the way, and I've said to this the RED people before, they made a mistake. They tried to use the web as their method of dissemination. That is always a double edge sword. It allows you to have one on one feedback with your customer and get your info out for free, but it also puts you on record. And in this world, put yourself on record and folks will tear you apart.

I'm guessing they are trying to foster a community of user/customers who can interact and make development and testing of the Red camera happen not to mention using the web as a tool for marketing and sales at the same time. Too bad it goes both ways, when "the people" can talk freely, ALL the grievances and dirt get aired.

 

Panasonic learned this when they had one of their sales folks act as a web representative. She gave good information on numerous websites, but was caught in being put on record, and instead of letting it go, she fought complaints and misinformation online in public forums, and in doing so, hurt the company, rather than helped it.

Well... I think dvxuser.com is working pretty well for Panasonic now...

 

Had RED not taking such a grass roots approach to their marketing, I don't think such sites would exist today. Things would have been said as they are when large manufactures have problems, but that is where would have ended just as discussions do fade away eventually. REDs discussions of problems, potential problems, and misgivings don't, rather they continue and continue to grow.

Trying to involve their customers and potential customers in their marketing and R&D scheme without delivering the goods will to a large extent be the nail in Red's coffin I think. Hope and promises is only going to carry them so far.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Forum Sponsors

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CINELEASE

CineLab

Metropolis Post

New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Film Gears

Visual Products

BOKEH RENTALS

Cinematography Books and Gear



×
×
  • Create New...