REDuser ethics

[Keith Walters]

I know Max is pulling my leg now. Max wouldn't lower himself to associate himself with a digital medium. I honestly believe Max uses film to record family scrapbook material in addition to movie projects. Max is the ultimate purist and for that, I admire him. I love film but even I don't have a problem with DI or telecines. Sometimes I think it would be fun to actually cut on film.

Oh dear, here we go again.

There is nothing particualrly wrong with the "Digital" part of any modern system.

Whether you are a film purist or not, unless you are Steven Spielberg, Digital systems are the only game in town, and have been for some years.

The issue is always the analog part, right at the front end, whether we are talking about CMOS or CCD sensors, or film scanners.

Film is simply a much better analog capture medium than silicon.

Once the film emulsion has done all the hard work of taming real world extremes of brightness (which are far greater than most people appreciate), a silicon-based ANALOG sensor has a half decent chance of extracting a signal that can fit through the relatively narrow dynamic range of current generation Digital Post Production equipment.

Think of it as just another layer of signal processing.

No amount of digital jiggery-pokery AFTER the sensor has "sow's eared" an image is ever going to turn it into the silk purse your customers were expecting. You might be able to produce better grades of Rayon, but that's all.

If your budget can't afford this extra layer, well fine, add it to the list of other things that your project's budget will not support.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

No amount of digital jiggery-pokery AFTER the sensor has "sow's eared" an image is ever going to turn it into the silk purse your customers were expecting. You might be able to produce better grades of Rayon, but that's all.

 

I agree that film ACQUISITION is the biggest deal in terms of image quality. But then again, you will lose something by using inferior sensors to capture even a film image. I know that the look of projected 8/16mm film is so much nicer than the look of telecined footage.

 

Maybe the most significant thing RED could provide is not to ACQUIRE images but to give a better TRANSFER medium as their sensor seems to have more DR than other sensors. I know this is blasphemy to RED users but actually may be a good idea.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

I think you'll find that most people have realized by now that RED has LESS dynamic range than other digital cameras, like the Genesis or F23 for instance.

 

Ahh, but I thought RED was touting 11 1/3 stops? Is this true or a lie? Hyperbole?

[Phil Rhodes]

It is widely believed that the Red camera has high dynamic range and high resolution compared with cameras costing ten times as much and that it has raw recording, for some value of "raw" that has meaning beyond "we make you do half the job on equipment you provide".

 

It doesn't actually have any of these things, but it's still widely believed to.

 

This, more than anything else, guides my reaction to the thing. The people who make it are arrogant blaggards who bask in the glory of accomplishments they could not be bothered to actually pursue.

 

P

[Matthew W. Phillips]

This, more than anything else, guides my reaction to the thing. The people who make it are arrogant blaggards who bask in the glory of accomplishments they could not be bothered to actually pursue.

 

I love the way you word things, Phil. You are so articulate.

 

Translation: Camera team = Ego-driven delusional low-ball manufacturers.

[Craig Bowman]

Ahh, but I thought RED was touting 11 1/3 stops? Is this true or a lie? Hyperbole?

 

I wouldn't pay any attention to anyones claims when tables and statistics are concerned if I were you. I'm strictly a let me see for myself and I'll know what my judgement is. That's like you claiming I'm in the top .5 percent of the population because I can write assembly language. Unless there's a large enough sample and very controlled circumstances which are acknowleged for each test, just another unsubstantiated claim.

 

People can stand on both sides with all the charts and graphs they want. I am quite capable of deciding for myself as I'm sure all of you are. Buy or rent whatever you wish and make up your own minds. Learn to see what you can make them do in your hands.

 

I've spent enough time with various formats and I have my own ideas of how I can push a certain stock or how I'd like to see a particular scene blocked for interesting but effective coverage. None of that came out of an operators manual.

 

I picked up a Red in January and still have less than six months experience with it. So far I've had no technical issues at all. I'm aware some colleagues have had some problems and since I wasn't there personally I won't comment either way. Certainly first hand experience will give me the same direct knowledge I've always relied on. What anyone else does is up to them and they are completely entitled.

Edited June 15, 2008 by Craig Bowman

[Mitch Gross]

Do not confuse dynamic range with lattitude. Kodak says Vision 3 has something like 16 stops of Dynamic Range. But of course it doesn't have nearly that much lattitude.

[John Sprung]

I'd love to cut on film too, but unfortunately the equipment isn't readily available in Luxembourg, ....

About ten years ago, I got a glimpse into a seldom-opened storage room on the lot where I worked at the time. It was crammed full of green cutter Moviolas, must have been at least a couple dozen. Projectionists still use splice tape, so it should be feasible and maybe even inexpensive to tool up for film cutting again.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Brad Grimmett]

void TILE_HANDLER::LoadSpriteV3(int TileInst, int left, int right, int top, int bottom,

int LibTileNum)

{

/* This app is the workhorse of the whole thing.*/

int AbVert; //Absolute vertice reference point

float Xref, Yref;

int Ysolve,Xsolve; //Algebraic

float Xpos, Ypos; //Actual coords of texture data

 

//Calculate texture data

Xref = (float)1/LIB_X_TILES;

Yref = (float)1/LIB_Y_TILES;

//Solve for X/Y (Asm)

_asm{

mov eax, LibTileNum ;

shr eax, 5 ;

mov Ysolve, eax ;

mov eax, LibTileNum ;

mov ebx, Ysolve ;

shl ebx, 5 ;

sub eax, ebx ;

mov Xsolve, eax ;

}

//Figure out texture coords now

Xpos= Xsolve * Xref;

Ypos= Ysolve * Yref;

 

//Vertice data here

AbVert= TileInst * 6; //Have reference point now!

int i;

for(i=0;i<6;i++) //Unchanging

{

square[AbVert+i].rhw = 1.0f;

square[AbVert+i].z = 0.0f;

}

square[AbVert].x = (float)left;

square[AbVert].y = (float)top;

square[AbVert].tu = Xpos;

square[AbVert].tv = Ypos;

square[AbVert+1].x = (float)right;

square[AbVert+1].y = (float)top;

square[AbVert+1].tu = Xpos+Xref;

square[AbVert+1].tv = Ypos;

square[AbVert+2].x = (float)left;

square[AbVert+2].y = (float)bottom;

square[AbVert+2].tu = Xpos;

square[AbVert+2].tv = Ypos+Yref;

square[AbVert+3].x = (float)right;

square[AbVert+3].y = (float)top;

square[AbVert+3].tu = Xpos+Xref;

square[AbVert+3].tv = Ypos;

square[AbVert+4].x = (float)right;

square[AbVert+4].y = (float)bottom;

square[AbVert+4].tu = Xpos+Xref;

square[AbVert+4].tv = Ypos+Yref;

square[AbVert+5].x = (float)left;

square[AbVert+5].y = (float)bottom;

square[AbVert+5].tu = Xpos;

square[AbVert+5].tv = Ypos+Yref;

 

return;

}

English only on the forum! ;)

[Keith Walters]

About ten years ago, I got a glimpse into a seldom-opened storage room on the lot where I worked at the time. It was crammed full of green cutter Moviolas, must have been at least a couple dozen. Projectionists still use splice tape, so it should be feasible and maybe even inexpensive to tool up for film cutting again.

-- J.S.

Machines like that are still used by bulk processors for QC checking.

[Keith Walters]

It is widely believed that the Red camera has high dynamic range and high resolution compared with cameras costing ten times as much and that it has raw recording, for some value of "raw" that has meaning beyond "we make you do half the job on equipment you provide".

 

It doesn't actually have any of these things, but it's still widely believed to.

 

P

It is widely believed that Betamax was technically superior to VHS.

It is/was NOT, but even when I used to prove it, people still didn't believe me.

Now of course, you can't get them anymore so that particular Urban Myth will remain forever cast in stone.

(Before you all get excited, Betamax is NOT Betacam!!)

[Brian Drysdale]

It is widely believed that Betamax was technically superior to VHS.

It is/was NOT, but even when I used to prove it, people still didn't believe me.

Now of course, you can't get them anymore so that particular Urban Myth will remain forever cast in stone.

(Before you all get excited, Betamax is NOT Betacam!!)

 

Although the old Betacam (not SP) tapes used to work in the Betamax machines. I'm sure the broadcasters were happy that Betamax didn't take off or they'd have had a larger wastage rate.

 

I can't comment, since I never owned or used one, but I do know a Betamax owner who swore by his old machine.

[John Sprung]

Machines like that are still used by bulk processors for QC checking.

Here they usually check release prints on high speed projectors. They're actually gentler on the film than a Moviola, and they have feed and takeup spindles. The cutter model of Moviola was hand fed into a bag. NLE's are certainly more convenient in that respect, but they lack the traditional chair cut function.... ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Keith Walters]

Here they usually check release prints on high speed projectors. They're actually gentler on the film than a Moviola, and they have feed and takeup spindles. The cutter model of Moviola was hand fed into a bag. NLE's are certainly more convenient in that respect, but they lack the traditional chair cut function.... ;-)

 

-- J.S.

Most bulk duplicators have a rudimentary "rear projection" setup that allows every print to be watched at high speed as it is drawn out of the drying booths and wound onto a spool. This allows operators to spot any gross deformities in the print.

 

Moviolas/Steenbecks etc are still used for real time checking for defects in duplicating negatives.

[Keith Walters]

Although the old Betacam (not SP) tapes used to work in the Betamax machines. I'm sure the broadcasters were happy that Betamax didn't take off or they'd have had a larger wastage rate.

Originally Sony said that Betamax tapes could be used by Betacam recroders, but they soon found that the internal tape transport (in the cassette) was not really up to the task of running at nine times the intended speed (they also tended to be somewhat noisy).

 

Hence they brought out "Proper" Betacam tapes optimized for that speed, but the transport is too loose for most Betamax machines, and so you tend to get poor head to tape contact, resulting in dropouts.

 

I was given a whole carton of brand new oxide Betacam tapes, which I thought would be a lifetime suppy for my Toshiba Betamax machine, but they aren't all that successful. At first I thought the VCR was faulty, but I managed to get some proper Betamax cassettes and they were fine. Well anyway, I only use it for transferring people's old Betamax tapes onto DVD now, so it doesn't really matter.

 

 

 

 

I can't comment, since I never owned or used one, but I do know a Betamax owner who swore by his old machine.

Some people worship anything with "Sony" written on it. No amount of facts will deter them.

Edited June 19, 2008 by Keith Walters

[Guest Glen Alexander]

All I am saying is that a lot of so-called "hard disc faults" are simply software problems, often the result of people's ineptitude or possibly the case getting thumped at precisely the wrong moment.

 

i found that lacie had a bad bug in the FW800 controller for their raids that used four drives, nothing to do with OS, ineptitude, or thumped. junk firmware or really bad implementation of FW800 stack, USB chipset worked fine.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Sony said that Betamax tapes could be used by Betacam recroders, but they soon found that the internal tape transport (in the cassette) was not really up to the task of running at nine times the intended speed (they also tended to be somewhat noisy).

 

Hence they brought out "Proper" Betacam tapes optimized for that speed, but the transport is too loose for most Betamax machines, and so you tend to get poor head to tape contact, resulting in dropouts.

 

As you say, the transport issue could vary from machine to machine, the guy I mentioned used the Betacam tapes without any problems.

[Michael Lehnert]

I'd love to cut on film too, but unfortunately the equipment isn't readily available in Luxembourg, so it'll be more expensive than cutting on a NLE.

 

That can be arranged, Max :) .

 

Just 200km south of you is the shop of our long-time cine-tech guy who starts to retire now over the next decade (he's a slow retiree). While we had to pay for a Steenbeck and Stellavox rigs & racks some years ago, he has now started to hand out 6-platers for free (at least for 16mm - not sure about 35), and throws in Perfo 16 machines as well as Arri cutters. David Auner from here recently profited from such a deal after a good word or two.

 

If you have the studio space, a solid flooring (weight concern) and the will to maintain them over the next decades, the "getting" isn't a problem. We will have him around tomorrow in our Swiss premises, replacing one of the belts on a 5-plater. There is nothing as convenient as projecting a freshly shot test reel on a screen or quickly checking work prints on a plater of you shoot on cine-film.

 

Cheers,

 

-Michael

[Stephen Williams]

This is not my email address... your point?

 

Jim

 

Hi Jim,

 

This is the first post you made here!

 

My best

 

Stephen

 

I hope this camera is achievable... we are working overtime and throwing a lot of resources at the project. We have great intentions to deliver a camera that is measurably more capable than what is currently available or that we see on the horizon from other companies. We have added some great industry consultants as "adult supervision" to our other assets to do such a project. We currently have a great design team, optical and electronic engineers, 3D CAD modeling, liquid laser prototype equipment, electron beam gun vapor deposition machines. 5 axis mills, full testing capability, a titanium casting plant and a strong sense that we can make it to the end of the line. The foundation of our project is a very innovative sensor. Specs are incredible. We hope that we can help make 2006 a very interesting year.

 

Jim Jannard

www.red.com

4k@red.com

[Jim Jannard]

Hi Jim,

 

This is the first post you made here!

 

My best

 

Stephen

 

Stephen... the date on that post was Dec. 2005, a day or two after the "decision" was made to do this project. At that time, there were two of us on the RED team, Ted and I. There were three emails addresses at that time... 4K@red.com was one of them and designated as the "general" company email address. Very early in 2006, that email address was assigned to Joanne. So anything coming after Feb 2006 would have been from her. We were pretty busy at that time designing, engineering and prototyping the camera... and getting ready for our 1st NAB... that there probably wasn't enough supervision of what responses were made from that address. No excuses, just the way it was. BTW, if there is a physical address listed for RED Digital somewhere, it is not my home address... and if you call the RED phone number, I am not the one designated to answer the call.

 

Your posts seem more and more pointed at finding some discrepancy in my presentation than actually contributing to useful info about RED. I don't quite get it. You are a smart guy with plenty to offer. We communicate behind the scenes. If you have questions or inferences like this one, they could easily be cleared up in a quick email rather than forcing me to post clarifications on this board. If I don't respond to your post, then I must be lying about 4K@red.com. Not sure why you feel it is necessary to do this.

 

Jim

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Nice try, baiting me with ad-hominem attacks.

 

Ad-hominem? Latin for "to the man", that would imply that I actually said "Ruairi, you are blah blah" not "Ruairi, you said a lame remark on your blog." The ONLY thing I said that was Ad-hominem was that you are a RED fanboy. The other remarks were about what you did, not who you are.

[David Mullen ASC]

Please stop with the personal attacks, everyone. Either refute an argument with logic and facts, or just let some bit of idiocy pass if you can't successfully counter it. I get as cynical as the next person, but don't let it run amok for too many posts...

[Matthew W. Phillips]

Please stop with the personal attacks, everyone. Either refute an argument with logic and facts, or just let some bit of idiocy pass if you can't successfully counter it. I get as cynical as the next person, but don't let it run amok for too many posts...

 

I am sorry David. I realize I shouldn't engaged in personal attacks. However, the fact that nobody has been banned in all of this back and forth on this thread is a testament to how much more freedom of speech is permitted on this site over Reduser.net, which is the subject of this thread afterall. Not one persons been banned OR had their posts deleted or edited. Say what you will about how this site has handled the issue of the RED camera, but there has always been both sides of the coin represented on these forums without any retribution from the Moderators which is definitely more than I can say for RedUser AND Dvxuser.

[David Mullen ASC]

As I keep trying to explain to the RedUser folks, this is a general cinematography site so there will naturally be a broader range of opinions on film and digital, rather than the generally pro-digital opinions on a digital camera user site. If this site were dedicated only to film shooters, then I would expect an even higher quotient of anti-digital opinions. But it's a mix, just as the industry has a mix, and film schools have a mix, of digital and film users -- and there are extreme opinions on both sides, and a lot of people in the middle.

 

So I would say in defense of RedUser... what else would you expect but careful moderation of anti-RED sentiments expressed among a bunch of people who are obviously positive enough about the RED to be users or potential users? Why would you not expect an overwhelmingly pro-digital sentiment there?

 

I mean, it's a no brainer when someone says "RED got a lot better reception at sites like DV.Com and DVInfo.Net than Cinematography.Com or the CML" -- of course it did!!! These people like shooting digitally, or they shoot digitally for their living, or else why are they hanging out in a digital camera user site? Cinematography.Com and the CML, however, have some people in it who shoot mainly film and hardly any digital, and have a totally different perspective on the issue.

 

It's a little like the incorrect notion that evolution means a continual improvement in a species or society. It has nothing to do with improvement or gradual superiority, it's just about change over time, and some changes are useful, some harmful, and some neutral. The change from film to digital is not a change for the better or the worse, it's just a change that reflects movements in technology, economics, and artistic sensibilities. Some aspects may prove to be superior, others may reflect a loss, and some will be neutral in impact or perceived effect.

 

While it's important to not be a luddite, it's also important to not always think that the latest thing is the best thing, to not think that anything newer is better than anything older. There is so much from the past to cherish, both technically and artistically, and it would be a loss to not stop and consider what should be salvaged or preserved before we move on, to not try to hold on to certain qualities that we have cherished over time.

 

Discussing the film vs. digital issue in terms of pixel resolution is becoming so early-2000's... ;) Time to move on and admit that there are aspects to the film image that perhaps aren't even measurable by instruments but are perceptible to the human eye... but also admit that, on the other hand, a difference that hardly makes a difference really isn't a difference, and eventually may reach the point where few filmmakers really care anymore about the (future) minor differences between film and digital. Hopefully film will disappear when no one cares anymore if it disappeared, not a day earlier than that. But that's wishful thinking...

 

As I work more and more with film scans of 35mm material, and do more D.I.'s, and shoot digitally as well, I'm finding that the whole sharpness / resolution thing is a lot more complicated than 2K vs. 4K. Sometimes 35mm anamorphic photography shot on slower film in crisp light just seems to have more depth of detail than any digital image I've seen... yet so much 35mm photography (even my own) seems to barely rise above the average HD-shot image either, resolution-wise, and I can't always explain why.

 

So if one expert claims that some piece of 35mm photography seems to exceed 4K in resolution and some other expert says that it barely exceeds 720 lines... I believe that both people truly believe what they are saying and can provide examples to back it up. Dave Keighley, who does the IMAX blow-ups using his DMR process, said that the 35mm anamorphic IP he got for "Batman Begins" needed to be scanned at 6K for some day exterior scenes, and this was from a one-generation removed piece of film. He knows what he's talking about and he's blown-up just about every format known to man to IMAX at some point. On the other hand, I've seen 2K scans that seem to be resolving every grain on a piece of 35mm film, and you figure there can't be more visual detail that at the grain level on a piece of film.

 

This is why I think the average 35mm movie negative is probably between 2K and 4K in practical resolution, and the typical 35mm projection is between 1K and 2K. So if someone says HD projection is comparable to 35mm projection, I think they aren't far from the truth. However, then we fall right back into the other issue, that there's a lot more to the film image than resolution & detail.

[Matthew W. Phillips]

So I would say in defense of RedUser... what else would you expect but careful moderation of anti-RED sentiments expressed among a bunch of people who are obviously positive enough about the RED to be users or potential users? Why would you not expect an overwhelmingly pro-digital sentiment there?

 

I don't have a problem with them moderating blatant anti-RED sentiment. I think what amazes me about the REDuser site is how real RED users and owners are putting up REAL problems they are having and looking for real solutions but all they get is flamed by other members who may or may not have ever even shot a RED camera but yet they still insult instead of help. I come here and spend most of my time in the Super 8 forums but when I mention a problem I have, I get support from other members who might know how to fix a problem or at least sympathy if something wasn't my fault and was some sort of equipment malfunction.

 

I remember a thread on here awhile ago about Kodak's 310 batch of Ektachrome 64t stock that was having transport issues. As much as some of us like to shoot Super 8, we don't get into fanboyism and assume that someone must be inept or lying about said issue. We simply take note of it, help if we can, or avoid the 310 batch if we are extra cautious.