Premium Member Walter Graff Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 "Well... I think dvxuser.com is working pretty well for Panasonic now..." I was referring to the HVX and Panasonics attempts to make available a spokesperson on websites. It had it's good points but once it became bad it hurt business. And they also tried to create a phony blog supposedly by a former employee and insider that was devastating once folks found out it was fake and northing more than Panasonic propaganda. No one likes to feel tricked. They took that site down. The HVX sold well but their method of grassroots marketing saw a lot of folks turned off because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 I think digital stills cameras look so much better than all current digital film cameras. Well Max, I'd love to have a 24 fps version of my D3, IOW I'm inclined to agree........ That said I do tend to get a lemon yellow on Sodium vapor (or is the problem that Phil's looking at sodium vapour :unsure: ?) Haven't shot under the 'pinky' ones yet.... (which Rec 709 turn sickly, uh pardon the expression, red....) well I can turn it orange with WB in cam or in RAW conversion.... WB & sodium hardly know each other the way I see it and yellow is the spectrum of sodium..... I abandoned my once study of various sodium vapor light variations the grounds of wtf can I do about the damn things and in fact daylight color neg looks best to me, I don't think it's accurate tho.... That said I've gotten quite good skin tone from dodgy fluoros and with sodium in the background a look akin to Chris Doyle pushing Fuji 250 2 stops on "Fallen Angels" so if I *wanted* to go there B) I could.... -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Santucci Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 "Well... I think dvxuser.com is working pretty well for Panasonic now..." I was referring to the HVX and Panasonics attempts to make available a spokesperson on websites. It had it's good points but once it became bad it hurt business. And they also tried to create a phony blog supposedly by a former employee and insider that was devastating once folks found out it was fake and northing more than Panasonic propaganda. No one likes to feel tricked. They took that site down. The HVX sold well but their method of grassroots marketing saw a lot of folks turned off because of it. Yeah... and they currently have a spokesperson working the dvxuser forum on Panasonic's behalf and it seems to be working pretty well. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 Yeah... and they currently have a spokesperson working the dvxuser forum on Panasonic's behalf and it seems to be working pretty well. . Yea it does work there where a lot of video enthusiests hang out, but it got into trouble outside of there in more professional senarios. And that was the point about RED. It works well on a RED-centric site, but outside of that, like the other attempts is often turns on itself after time and causes more harm to the brand than good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Peploe Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Walter you're the type that likes to hear himself talk. And one who thinks his opinion matters. Do us a favor and shut the f**k up. Yeah i said it. I haven't been a red fan boy at all but your stupid analysis is by far the most ridiculous I've ever read regarding the camera. Even worse than Phils obession with its not a 4K camera rant. What are you Nostradamus for the digtal video world. The fact remains that the camera is released when some said it wouldn't. The fact remains that it shoot great images.Proven. The fact remains that its very affordable for the kind of cam it is. The fact remains that Jannard has promised all ouputs by middle of March not years from now..People are using it now with great results. What else are these cams supposed to do for you? Do me a favor an put your analysis where it belongs: in the garbage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 Thanks for your thoughts Michael. I appreciate the good and bad in life, the happy and unhappy. You don't have to agree with me. I only speak for myself, hence why my name is next to my posts and under them. If you choose to take the words personally, that is about you, not me. They are only words, not directed at you, or anyone for that mater, just based on my life experiences. I don't expect anyone else to have the same exact experience as me. Perhaps you could simply ignore my posts. Perhaps that will help. This might be of interest: http://www.bluesky-web.com/stuff/05.mp3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaron Berman Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 It is funny how this thread has turned into a debate about marketing. The initial post was pretty obviously (even in title) meant to stir anger against a camera. I think it says a lot that so much frustration is leveled at RED's marketing campaign. Had RED simply come up with a camera and released it on the market next month, after their landmark "image quality build," I'm guessing that the majority of hatred/frustration/negativity aimed at them would instead be excitement. Had they never promised so much, or assembled such a loyal following of wide-eyed newbies, many of us would have looked objectively at the product as just that - a product. Unfortunately, the viral marketing turned it into the "Jesus" camera, savior of all productions and giver of opportunities to those with no experience. It would be silly to ignore the fact that so much of this backlash has absolutely nothing to do with the camera, so much as the buyers who saw a lack of RED as the only thing that ever held them back from super stardom. There was a post on REDUSER yesterday about "should I buy RED or go to film school." It's a pretty good indicator of who's buying the camera, and it's the same phenomenon that happened when people began buying the DVX or HVX and started calling themselves "DP's" mere days later. RED has delivered all the rhetoric, and slowly the community is finding out that there are essentially two routes you can take with the camera. You can go cheap, use all RED's stuff, and find yourself sorely disappointed by the workflow and fit and finish compared to the hype. Or, you can spend top dollar and use it in a traditional film workflow and use high-end grading systems, accessories, etc... and have a great experience more comparable in cost to similar cameras. The big problem is believing the hype that the "low road" will actually be as easy and smooth as the "high road." It's not, it won't be. But again - you have options. RED may not really be revolutionary in any way besides the price. It may not be "truly" 4k, but very few people would argue about the resolution that IS being produced. The physical accessories are beyond awful, but there are companies (Element Technica) who make really good accessories for this camera. Post is a bumpy road, but again - if you're willing to spend the cash and treat it like a high-end camera, it can be done quite well. Getting so worked-up about a camera is essentially agreeing with the lowest common denominator of the RED community that its the camera and not talent makes the end product. In the end, RED is a product, a camera, which has its positive aspects and drawbacks like any other tool. I think it's fair to react to USERS when they make ridiculous claims, but the camera is an inanimate object. If it works for you, great! If not, then luckily we have a lot of other options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Peploe Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) Oh please walter don't throw this back at me with that Toltec shaman modern interpretation self help nonsense. They were the ones that believed in live sacrifices to brightly colored birds right?. Be a man, stop listening to Peter Coyote and admit you wrote all these posts regarding RED to sway opinion which flies in the face of the 'four agreements'. Those posts were not meant to elucidate or inform. I got a suggestion. Instead of heresay like we get from Phil "this is what i saw at the video show" Rhodes or Walter "hey this where I believe Red messed up" Graff or Thomas "hey these are images I got off someone on the web but know nothing about how it was shot but it definitely proves Red images stink but I'll leave it up to you to judge" Worth, why don't you all get your hands dirty and do your own tests. I did and the RED is a wonderful camera that has more than enough resolution for any medium. The only difference is I'm not here to prove it to anyone like the rest of you. I do my own tests and leave it up to the rest of you to do your own. Thats where the truth is. You'd be surprised how generous some RED owners will be to let you have free time with the cam. F**k the fanboys and F**k the naysayers who get heir info second hand. Edited February 21, 2008 by Michael Peploe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 It is funny how this thread has turned into a debate about marketing. The initial post was pretty obviously (even in title) meant to stir anger against a camera. I think it says a lot that so much frustration is leveled at RED's marketing campaign. I don't think other than my thoughts about REDS marketing and how that actually helped stir up hatred, has this turned into a marketing thread. This thread was started with hatred. I simply looked at what I see all over the web, when one makes a stand and others take what you say personally, all sense of sensibility in what the detractors say becomes that, mostly nonsensical anger, not based on experience but on illusions. RED is a great camera for the money. And the best point you make is that it is a tool. But as I said here and other places, today's generation is all about tools and not talent so when you say 1080i you better mean it or they will do a web search and assimilate that knowledge and fight you nail and tooth. No one seems to want a write a script these days. They'd rather shoot containers of soap and determine how good a product is and how much they might be able to do with it. But no one seems to do much. I saw a few great examples recently in the "Critique my work" thread here, but it's funny how that board gets a infrequent post, yet a thread on a pre-release trailer of Indian Jones and how bad it looks so the movie must be shot with video or some newfangled stock gets 80 posts that make a discussion equivalent to chewing someone's gum you found under a table. Many folks who own RED are very happy with RED. And a few are not. Other than that, it's mostly ignorance that drives hatred and misunderstandings about it. And the interesting thing is that hatred is by folks who never used it, like most of these discussions about equipment and formats, etc. I wonder what kind of threads we'd have if there was such things as websites like this but not web searches like Google that make anyone a cinematographer through the push of the search button. In a way life was so much simpler before the web and you knew who was a professional and those that wore a PANAVISION hat and acted like one. Today you can order those hats for $12 bucks online. Sort of like the junk web degree emails I get in my junk mailbox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 Too bad your such an angry person Michael. You ought to go back and read my posts in this thread. You'll find I never said anything bad about the camera or what it does, or what RED said it did. Anger can often cloud clarity so I understand. All the best!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serge Teulon Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 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. I like you am not sold on the motion digital front.....I find myself laughing as I was once upon-a-time someone that stood up for the 'new' digital technology. Ironic. Only to now feel that I was 'marketed', albeit for a short while but nevertheless 'marketed'. I feel there is nothing, and I repeat nothing that comes close to film. And in all honesty I don't think that anything else but film will ever come close to film! The guys at Sony, Dalsa etc...are hard at work to try and accomplish the one bit of machinery that will achieve the beautiful images that the chemical process offers to us. Good luck to them but personally for me there is nothing like the sound of film running in my right ear! Why? Why change something when it is already there? Money? Surely it can't be.....Environmental issues? Maybe....security? Perhaps.... Maybe some of the insiders can give us a more up and close view on this?! Cheers S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Peploe Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 (edited) 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. But along the way, and I've said to this the RED people before, they made a mistake. 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. .... 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 Sorry Notradamus I forgot you know me and the easiest way is to dismiss someone is by calling them angry. Isn't that how they labeled Mcain. How they labeled him the first go round and it worked. Now he's not so angry. Stop being a baby Walter. Look in your magic mirror honestly Walter it isn't anger but truth. And sometimes it hurts. The sad part is people who could have gotten the straight scoop from Jannard or Nattress now can't because of all this verbal garbage. I know Jannard is reading these and hope he enters the fray again someday so this board can be a place of true discussion not fantasy. Edited February 21, 2008 by Michael Peploe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Walter Graff Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 Sorry Michael, I don't make discussions personal. I'll stay on topic here although I don't agree with the title of this thread. No, I'm not angry. I have no reason to be. All the best to you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 They were the ones that believed in live sacrifices to brightly colored birds right?. Now I haven't tried THAT on a digital shoot yet...... making a note here....... -Sam Chirp before you chimp ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Worth, why don't you all get your hands dirty and do your own tests. I did do my own test, using an uncompressed 4K frame grab of footage that represents a typical shooting situation. And I posted it for everyone to see, without trying to bias the results or sneak my own personal opinion into the mix. If you feel the results are not satisfactory, then post your own test. And if you don't want to, then please keep your angry comments to yourself, because they contribute nothing. Thank you. I did and the RED is a wonderful camera that has more than enough resolution for any medium. Wow. You're just brilliant. Thank you so much for saving us all from having to do any more tests. :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 I got a suggestion. Instead of heresay like we get from Phil "this is what i saw at the video show" Rhodes or Walter "hey this where I believe Red messed up" Graff or Thomas "hey these are images I got off someone on the web but know nothing about how it was shot but it definitely proves Red images stink but I'll leave it up to you to judge" Excuse me, by "heresay" do you mean "hearsay" or "heresy"? The legal definition of "hearsay" is evidence presented that is based on what a witness heard somebody else say about some person or thing which is relevant to the court case or whatever, but the witness speaking has no direct knowledge of it. So if somebody said "the Panasonic KXXXXX111222333 is a piece of rubbish", and when asked how they **know** this, they replied "Phil Rhodes said so" that would be hearsay evidence, and not admissable in a court of law. To use that statement, they would have to get Phil Rhodes himself on the stand, and get HIM to make that statement, to ensure it was free of any "embroidering" by third-party witnesses. In this case, Phil Rhodes is quite clearly speaking from his own experience - not merely parroting the opinions of others - so that is most definitely NOT "hearsay". (On the other hand, if you mean "heresy", looking at the bulk of fanboy posts on Reduser and elsewhere, that would probably be an apt term, at least from their point of view:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Peploe Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 You know Thomas you are a tool. what i wrote is just as valid as your so called 'TEST". Wow you really want me to grab a unknown file from who knows where and to a Down conversion and then up it. Wow Tom you really are the brilliant one. Reread my post Tom I did my own tests you haven't. My test is more valid than your test, to me. I'm not here to convince anyone but you are. And why did you leave out what I wrote about people doing their own tests for truth. Maybe because you want some backslapping like you got from Phil. Wake up Tom what you did was not a test. It was a joke because you weren't there when the pic got taken. You weren't there. Clear enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted February 21, 2008 Premium Member Share Posted February 21, 2008 Well Max, I'd love to have a 24 fps version of my D3, IOW I'm inclined to agree........ That said I do tend to get a lemon yellow on Sodium vapor (or is the problem that Phil's looking at sodium vapour :unsure: ?) Haven't shot under the 'pinky' ones yet.... (which Rec 709 turn sickly, uh pardon the expression, red....) well I can turn it orange with WB in cam or in RAW conversion.... WB & sodium hardly know each other the way I see it and yellow is the spectrum of sodium..... I abandoned my once study of various sodium vapor light variations the grounds of wtf can I do about the damn things and in fact daylight color neg looks best to me, I don't think it's accurate tho.... That said I've gotten quite good skin tone from dodgy fluoros and with sodium in the background a look akin to Chris Doyle pushing Fuji 250 2 stops on "Fallen Angels" so if I *wanted* to go there B) I could.... -Sam This will depend on what sort of sodium vapour and what sort of fluorescent lamps they are. The old type of sodium lamps were the "low pressure" variety, whose mode of operation was more like a neon lamp, where the excited sodium atoms only produce two closely spaced yellow wavelengths. They are very efficient at turing electrical power into light, and because human eyes work particualrly well at those wavelengths, they are particualrly good for highway lighting. However, because of the narrow spectrum, colour rendition is virtually impossible, and people who have to live near them complain all the time. High-pressure sodium lamps are more like mercury vapour (HMI) types, in that they produce significant amounts of white, and the golden-white light they produce is much more acceptable to "bystanders". However, they are not as electrically efficient as low-pressure types, and they tend to wear out more quickly, because the sodium atoms erode the electrodes. Early fluorescent lamps used a mixture of green and orange phosphors to try to simulate white light, withh varying degrees of success. More recent formulations are significantly improved, and so-called "tri-phosphor" lamps use a mixture of red, green and blue emitting phosophors to give a much more even spectrum. (This is what are used in Kino-Flo's and the like). So how well your subjects come up under any particualr installation is really a matter of luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Reread my post Tom I did my own tests you haven't. My test is more valid than your test, to me. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 22, 2008 Author Premium Member Share Posted February 22, 2008 I should probably point out that nobody's actually doing uncompressed Red tests as there is no uncompressed output worth recording. But the point remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Wells Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Thanks, Keith -- I've long since lost all my notes on this. Took another look at the Nikon D3 shots, I'm realizing it was a green wall that was reflecting all that yellow in AWB, and (caucasian) skintone went that way but the output itself was quite orange. -Sam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Sheehy Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 (edited) ...My test is more valid than your test, to me. So why are you still arguing with him? If you're convinced, then that's all you need to worry about. The rest of us will make up our own minds, thank you very much. Edited February 22, 2008 by Daniel Sheehy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Worth Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 I should probably point out that nobody's actually doing uncompressed Red tests as there is no uncompressed output worth recording. Yes. It's unclear how they are compressing the raw CMOS data, but since it is lossy my guess is you'd either have to sacrifice 1. resolution, or 2. bit depth -- which means a softer image and less dynamic range, respectively. I'm not an expert on compression, so someone please correct me if I'm being too general here. What would really be great to see is a frame grab demosaiced from uncompressed RAW. That might make a huge difference. I know that if the option was available, I would only ever shoot with RED in uncompressed RAW mode, using Phil's custom portable disk recorder. ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted February 22, 2008 Author Premium Member Share Posted February 22, 2008 It's wavelet, but it's clearly a lot of wavelet. Interestingly enough the artifact of wavelet is softness, so you would expect exactly what we're seeing here. It may be a compression artifact after all, especially as high contrast edges around specular highlights seem to be artificially sharp. Unfortunately, since they're talking down ideas of uncompressed recording, we may never see what this thing is really capable of. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted February 22, 2008 Share Posted February 22, 2008 Unfortunately, since they're talking down ideas of uncompressed recording, we may never see what this thing is really capable of. P I think that is the true tragety of the Red here, that for all of the hype, the design has wound up locked-off, with no idea as to the real capability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts