It's a sad shame

[Guest Josh Gannon]

Freya,

 

When I said that people shouldn't be posting is because we have all these people giving there opinions that haven't used the camera. How can people comment on a piece of equipment when they have no experience.

 

I must admit that this was an experiment and I got the result that I expected.

 

Start a good thread and no one cares.

 

Start a bullshit thread the way I did and all of a sudden everybody has an opinion.

 

 

Funny isn't it. It just proves to me that a lot of the people here don't really care about information and these forums have pretty much turned into entertainment for some people. You don't see anywhere near as many people acting like this in the 35mm forums. But that said, I am guilty and I do apologise.

 

Well thats me done.

 

I might come back in a couple of months and see if everything is the same.

 

 

Peace All.

Josh.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

When I said that people shouldn't be posting is because we have all these people giving there opinions that haven't used the camera. How can people comment on a piece of equipment when they have no experience.

Gotcha.

[Keith Walters]

There is an Australis ad running right now on 10 during oprah, It's the "you Beauty" ad

I've had the TV running in the background, and as luck would have it, the Beijing Promo came on when I was out of the room.

I can only take so much Oprah. It says Copyright 2008, but it looks like SD upscaled. Really bad SD, upscaled.

Certainly didn't look any different on CH10 SD! And I never caught the Ad.

 

Ch 7 were running a rubbish TV movie, which looked like it was mastered on NTSC tape! So much for HDTV.

 

I've now set up a USB HDTV recorder stick in my desktop PC, so I'll see if I can catch one that way.

 

Considering how RED have been guilty putting "Shot with RED" on productions only containing a minute amount of actual RED footage, I don't understand the reluctance to publicise these ads.

[John Holland]

I agree with you John. My point exactly. I need to see a high quality projection of a finish to make a determination about using the camera. Seems you're an elitist if you're not a true believer. Haven't checked this forum for a while.

 

By the way, I'll be in Paris to close with our European co-producer/distributor and will be in London to meet with our composer Dan Bewick, a U.K. producer we'll be working with on some projects, and so other friends and cast. Join us for a drink?

 

 

Hi Lance if you let me know when you are in London would love to join you for a drink if i can make that date . Cheers John .

[Scott Fritzshall]

I might come back in a couple of months and see if everything is the same.

I'd hazard a guess that if you start a similarly inflamatory thread here (or any other forum for that matter) in a couple months, you'll get a similar result. Why not lead by example and post something useful instead? This thread is pretty hard not to troll.

[Freya Black]

Freya,

 

When I said that people shouldn't be posting is because we have all these people giving there opinions that haven't used the camera. How can people comment on a piece of equipment when they have no experience.

 

That was exactly the point I was making. They didn't comment and you had a few (admittedly few) sensible replies.

 

I must admit that this was an experiment and I got the result that I expected.

 

Start a good thread and no one cares.

 

Start a bullshit thread the way I did and all of a sudden everybody has an opinion.

 

Yes of course because everyone CAN have an opinion because it is a thread that isn't about a camera they have barely used but about something they have direct experience of.

 

You don't know that nobody cares. Not posting a reply is not the same as not caring. They could be very intrested but not have anything to say because they don't have experience of the camera.

 

Funny isn't it. It just proves to me that a lot of the people here don't really care about information and these forums have pretty much turned into entertainment for some people. You don't see anywhere near as many people acting like this in the 35mm forums. But that said, I am guilty and I do apologise.

 

I don't think it's especially funny. It seems straightforward to me. You posted here about things that people have an opinion on and in which people can participate.

As you have already suggested, you went into this expecting a certain result and then you made it happen. Theres not really any big suprises about it.

 

Well thats me done.

 

I might come back in a couple of months and see if everything is the same.

 

Whats the point?

Of course it will be the same, unless of course your expectations change in the mean time.

 

If you come here and post some positive real things about the camera instead of about the people on this forum etc then you might get some intrested replies as you already did. You won't get loads of replies here about peoples own experiences as hardly anyone here has any experience of it. This doesn't mean that people don't care or aren't intrested tho. That's jumping to conclusions.

 

Also intresting is that most of the discussion in even this thread has been civil and straightforward and somewhat intrested except for a pro-red acolyte who took it upon theselves to start a discussion using the word girl as an insult. Thereby not only making a personal comment about someone that was unrelated to any thread or the red camera but also hurting people who weren't even involved in the thread! This was a pro-red person, so we can instantly see the problem isn't just with people being anti-red, in fact I'm starting to think quite the opposite.

 

Nothing is going to change here unless people with actual experience create real postings about their experiences instead of stuff like this one. To me your experiment makes this very clear. I have to say that I've posted on other parts of the site about film cameras and stuff and initially received far less replies than 4, so you were actually doing preety well but instead you decided to see it as a negative thing.

 

I think you are not only seeing what you want to see but actually making it happen.

 

love

 

Freya

Edited April 8, 2008 by Freya Black

[Brian Drysdale]

Quite a few threads only have a handful of replies. I feel that it's important that people do talk about their real life experiences with the RED and the work arounds that they have to do. Just like any other camera it's not perfect and I expect there are trade offs in the camera to keep its cost down etc. However, these camera are being used increasingly on a wide range of production, so it's important that they're discussed in a way that we can all learn from.

 

Years ago, I bought a Mission CD player which cost around £400 (Allowing for inflation I guess that would be close to £1000 in today's money), I could've bought cheaper CD players which had a very similar spec, but I felt it had better musical "sound". I suspect DPs will be making similar subtle choices regarding these new cameras. You have to make choices and use what works for you on production(s).

[Freya Black]

Quite a few threads only have a handful of replies. I feel that it's important that people do talk about their real life experiences with the RED and the work arounds that they have to do. Just like any other camera it's not perfect and I expect there are trade offs in the camera to keep its cost down etc. However, these camera are being used increasingly on a wide range of production, so it's important that they're discussed in a way that we can all learn from.

 

Theres a student who has shot with the Red right now asking for feedback about his work on this very site:

 

Link to thread.

 

It would be really good if people could go and be supportive of the felow and give him some positive feedback about his work if you feel able.

 

Josh, I especially think you should go and give some support. If you think people aren't making enough useful and positive replies to threads on the red camera then why not do so yourself! "Be the change you want to see!".

 

love

 

Freya

Edited April 8, 2008 by Freya Black

[John Holland]

And thats valid but 95% of content is made for bluray dvd, DVD, TV and web , with only hundreds that will ever be projected on a screen. Most people have home digital projectors, calibrated monitors, and large lcd displays they use for conforming, color correcting and viewing so judging quality for those people is perfectly valid too.

 

 

You maybe correct on what you say , but this Product has been sold as the [ yet again ] as the end of film .Bet i wouldnt be able to tell the difference on my very good PAL tv something shot Red , DigiBeta , etc, etc . I am talking about the CINEMA for F--ks sake .

[Stephen Williams]

You maybe correct on what you say , but this Product has been sold as the [ yet again ] as the end of film .Bet i wouldnt be able to tell the difference on my very good PAL tv something shot Red , DigiBeta , etc, etc . I am talking about the CINEMA for F--ks sake .

 

Hi John,

 

After all it's the Red One Digital Cinema camera so I agree it's output should be judged in the Cinema not on a computer or TV screen.

 

Stephen

[Michael Peploe]

You maybe correct on what you say , but this Product has been sold as the [ yet again ] as the end of film .Bet i wouldnt be able to tell the difference on my very good PAL tv something shot Red , DigiBeta , etc, etc . I am talking about the CINEMA for F--ks sake .

I said it was valid. It didn't elude me that you were talking about CINEMA. Whats the matter John?, If its so damn important a piece of proof to you why couldn't you get to any of the traveling 2k and 4k digital BIG CINEMA SCREEN showings that REd has given for the past year and a half all over the world for F--ks sake?

I'm sure theres an excuse coming.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

This claiming is... unfair, at least. Everybody in this activity knows that a movie in order to be seen on the screen takes time, months or even years. Did anyone notice how long this camera has been delivered to the customers?

 

C'mon... Jim and his team have been very reasonable with all of you naysayers... Despite the rudeness coming from a few or this or that poster, Jim Jannard has came here in a very humble attitude inviting you where you can see the RED footage in its own glory. But the bashing carries a tone of envy and defeat IMO. I wouldn't like to be in the picture.

[Stephen Williams]

This claiming is... unfair, at least. Everybody in this activity knows that a movie in order to be seen on the screen takes time, months or even years. Did anyone notice how long this camera has been delivered to the customers?

 

C'mon... Jim and his team have been very reasonable with all of you naysayers... Despite the rudeness coming from a few or this or that poster, Jim Jannard has came here in a very humble attitude inviting you where you can see the RED footage in its own glory. But the bashing carries a tone of envy and defeat IMO. I wouldn't like to be in the picture.

 

Hi Emanuel,

 

I don't really think a Red is necessary if the final delivery is for youtube.

It's cinema where Anamorphic 35mm blows S35mm DI's out of the water. I'm curious where Red sits when it's out of Beta with build 16.

 

Stephen

[Max Jacoby]

Glad to see you are contributing such informative posts, Emanuel . But please don't restrict yourself solely to the Red forum, there are many more forums on this site that could gain from your input.

[Michael Peploe]

Hi John,

 

After all it's the Red One Digital Cinema camera so I agree it's output should be judged in the Cinema not on a computer or TV screen.

 

Stephen

Maybe RED should have named it the RED Digital Cinema Theater Camera instead. I can't find a definition and never thought that the word cinema meant theaters as the only defining and valid place for the showing and acceptance of images. Movies were birthed from the nickelodeon, about a 7"x4" viewing screen.

[John Holland]

Maybe RED should have named it the RED Digital Cinema Theater Camera instead. I can't find a definition and never thought that the word cinema meant theaters as the only defining and valid place for the showing and acceptance of images. Movies were birthed from the nickelodeon, about a 7"x4" viewing screen.

 

You just dont get it do you ? I have nothing against this image making machine its just the same old poop since it was first said this is the cheap replacement for film , film in this country is not used a lot now on tv dramas thats fine . But i am not getting of my arse to go to theatre /cinema to watch a 7"x4" image if thats the best you seem to suggest its the best it can produce [ which i know of course is not the case ] But i just find your attitude really weird .

[Saul Rodgar]

I said it was valid. It didn't elude me that you were talking about CINEMA. Whats the matter John?, If its so damn important a piece of proof to you why couldn't you get to any of the traveling 2k and 4k digital BIG CINEMA SCREEN showings that REd has given for the past year and a half all over the world for F--ks sake?

I'm sure theres an excuse coming.

 

Well, in a few months the big budget movies that were shot on RED last year will start coming out to theatres near us and all this speculation will be settled for good when we can sit in front of a 40ft screen and judge for ourselves how well or not the RED holds up in those "real world" settings. (I wouldn't want to go to a RED PR sponsored 2k/4k screening).

 

'Till then, boys and girls, this never-ending debate is quite ahead of its time:

 

"The end of film?" Show me independently-shot RED footage on a 40' screen, and then we'll talk!

[Michael Peploe]

You just dont get it do you ? I have nothing against this image making machine its just the same old poop since it was first said this is the cheap replacement for film , film in this country is not used a lot now on tv dramas thats fine . But i am not getting of my arse to go to theatre /cinema to watch a 7"x4" image if thats the best you seem to suggest its the best it can produce [ which i know of course is not the case ] But i just find your attitude really weird .

 

Wow John I feel you need to be taken by the hand and have things spelled out for you. How you managed to merge two of my separate posts into this tirade is quite imaginative.

 

I'll be clearer for you. RED has for year and a half been traveling all over the world showing 2k and 4k Digital projection of their footage on a BIG ASS CINEMA SCREEN. Filling the screen John not 7"x4'", a movie, cinema screen. For free. Thats exactly what you say you want and will get your arse to the theater. So again why didn't you get your arse to the theater?

[Michael Peploe]

(I wouldn't want to go to a RED PR sponsored 2k/4k screening).

 

'Till then, boys and girls, this never-ending debate is quite ahead of its time:

 

 

Right. Everythings a conspiracy with RED. :rolleyes: And ultimately you are right again. "Till then" will be the only way this forum will satisfy itself.

[Stephen Williams]

Maybe RED should have named it the RED Digital Cinema Theater Camera instead. I can't find a definition and never thought that the word cinema meant theaters as the only defining and valid place for the showing and acceptance of images. Movies were birthed from the nickelodeon, about a 7"x4" viewing screen.

 

Hi,

 

Apparently Red exceeds the resolution of 35mm, I am also informed that the DR is very close as well. If it's true then so I don't see what people are worried about.

 

Stephen

[Saul Rodgar]

Right. Everythings a conspiracy with RED. :rolleyes: And ultimately you are right again. "Till then" will be the only way this forum will satisfy itself.

 

I am not saying is a conspiracy. What I mean is, for example, if a movie studio and its PR machine say such and such movie is the greatest, do you believe them without seeing the movie yourself? What you want is people who are independent from the studio (critics) who have hopefully seen it, AND who have nothing to GAIN from hyping it up or tearing it down to tell you what they really think about it, and then you can decide and go see it yourself, having had a little more balanced info about it. Similar situation. That is why independent consumer advocates exist in industry and NGO exist in politics.

Edited April 8, 2008 by Saul Rodgar

[John Holland]

Wow John I feel you need to be taken by the hand and have things spelled out for you. How you managed to merge two of my separate posts into this tirade is quite imaginative.

 

I'll be clearer for you. RED has for year and a half been traveling all over the world showing 2k and 4k Digital projection of their footage on a BIG ASS CINEMA SCREEN. Filling the screen John not 7"x4'", a movie, cinema screen. For free. Thats exactly what you say you want and will get your arse to the theater. So again why didn't you get your arse to the theater?

 

 

Not in this country if they had i would have been there . As i repeat again i want to see a filmout from the Red on a big screen you must be able to grasp that i hope ? . Anyway what part of the world are you in ?

[Michael Peploe]

I am not saying is a conspiracy. What I mean is, for example, if a movie and its PR machine say such and such movie is the greatest, do you believe them without seeing the movie yourself? What you want is people who are independent from the studio (critics), who have nothing to GAIN from hyping it up or tearing it down to tell you what they really think about it, and then you can decide and go see it yourself, having had a little more balanced info about it. Similar situation. That is why independent consumer advocates exist in industry and NGO exist in politics.

 

I understand the conflict that arises from a companies marketing. I went to screening from crossing the line early on. There were alot of camera image issues from the image left in that film. They didn't try to hide it. I saw it projected 2K from a laptop computer And furthermore somehow lying about the image thats being shown from a company thats all about image acquisition would spell its doom if found out.

 

This whole debate is about image quality Saul not content of story.At REds screenings we were seeing these images with our own eyes. Your trust your eyes don't you Saul. Hype is out the window at this point. So I'm just curious why we can't trust these screenings according to you, how you think a company that designed a camera that digitally acquires raw images, can be manipulated to look better when thats the whole purpose of a digitally acquired raw image.

[Emanuel A Guedes]

Hi Emanuel,

 

I don't really think a Red is necessary if the final delivery is for youtube.

Agreed. But...

 

It's cinema where Anamorphic 35mm blows S35mm DI's out of the water. I'm curious where Red sits when it's out of Beta with build 16.

 

Stephen

...sometimes, it's funny to see you among the usual "suspects" (other word for naysayer in my dictionary). The rest, I won't post here. You can check as PM where you know how to find me. And where you're simply one of the best contributors there. As resume, you know very well to where the RED goes or can go.

[John Holland]

Agreed. But...

 

 

...sometimes, it's funny to see you among the usual "suspects" (other word for naysayer in my dictionary). The rest, I won't post here. You can check as PM where you know how to find me. And where you're simply one of the best contributors there. As resume, you know very well to where the RED goes or can go.

 

" Suspects" " Naysayers can i expect a knock on my door from some people in long leather black coats asking for "Papers " poop you are very scary .