Jump to content

Jim to open "Red Ranch" prod. facility in Las Vegas


Carl Brighton

Recommended Posts

It's OK Adrian, just goes to show that Tom isn't so cocky when he has to put his money where his mouth is $100 is paltry. People casually bet more than that on a basketball game. . .

 

Maybe he is saving up for a low-serial number RED alert lens or some other new toy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 2 weeks later...
Hi Tom,

 

I am comfortable with $500, surely you will risk more than $20? Paypal works for me. David Mullen can be the judge if there is any doubt in the matter.

 

Stephen

 

Why do you need judges over here? Tom Lowe is your online mate actually. Wouldn't you put your own confidence on Tom's honor by any reason?... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, using the current criteria for the bet. What is the current ratio of film to digital productions for the period of Nov 07 to May 08? Anyone got a good way of figuring this out?

 

Good question. If anyone can figure this out, we might have a method for the betting. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well once the time comes to settle the bet, what better place to do it in Vegas! While you're there maybe you could check out that "Red Ranch" and shed a few tears as the future of movie making makes itself evident. Film is a wonderful medium, there's no doubt about that. The tangible aesthetic qualities will never be outdone by the digital world, but then again, more CD's are sold nowadays than Vinyl records and a heck of a lot of people prefer the sound of records over CD's, myself included. The world wants to "progress", they want to live in Gene Roddenberry's universe, and there just doesn't seem to be any room for tangible mediums in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well once the time comes to settle the bet, what better place to do it in Vegas! While you're there maybe you could check out that "Red Ranch" and shed a few tears as the future of movie making makes itself evident.

 

The only person who controls your future in filmmaking is yourself...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tangible aesthetic qualities will never be outdone by the digital world, but then again, more CD's are sold nowadays than Vinyl records and a heck of a lot of people prefer the sound of records over CD's, myself included.

As for a "heck of a lot of people" preferring vinyl, would you care to define "heck of a lot".

 

As far as the market for new vinyl goes, on a global scale it's microscopic.

 

In order of importance, Vinyl usage (new and old) roughly breaks down as follows:

 

1. Middle-aged casual music listeners who have suddenly realized that a lot of their old favourite albums are either never going to be released on CD, or the cost of replacing them is going to be way out of proportion to the amount of listening they are likely to receive. In the mid-1980s, when CDs first began to proliferate, the notion of home users being able to convert their existing LP collections to CD for next to nothing, simply did not exist.

 

At the time, CD recorders cost in the region of £20,000 to £40,000, and the blank discs cost more than a pre-recorded album! The only practical application for them then was for recording studios to make demo CDs.

But all that has changed drastically. Good blank CDs and combined CD/Dual-layer DVD burners are dirt cheap now.

 

Turntables are indeed selling quite well at the moment, but most of them are specifically designed for transferring vinyl to CD, a good percentage being fitted with USB output and bundled copying software. It's a distortion of the true situation to interpret rising sales of turntables as being due to people "preferring" the sound of vinyl over CD. All most of them really want is to be able to hear their old favourite tracks again but with the convenience and reliability of CD or MP3, and without spending a fortune.

 

2. Nightclub DJs who prefer the "organic" feel of being able physically manipulate a vinyl disc.

What they normally want to achieve is an unbroken rhythm as one dance track fades into the next. You can change the turntable speed to match up the beat rate of two songs easily enough, but getting the beats smoothly into sync is much harder. That?s why they do that stereotype MC thing, ?rocking? the second disc back and forth with their outstretched fingers while listening to a mix of that disc and the one currently being played to the audience. Once the sync sounds ?right? to them, they just let go of the disc and fade the main PA across to it.

There have been numerous attempts to automate this process using CDs or other digital media, but it?s a bit like pulling focus, nothing seems to work as well a human operator doing what feels (or in this case sounds) right. Smoothly matching up two different drum patterns is more art than science and it?s all part of the show anyway. It's abit like film origination really, rightly or wrongly people who are seen using vinyl are perceived to be likely to put on a better show than those who don't.

 

3. Audiophiles who have convinced themselves that ?Vinyl? sounds better and use their self-styled status as disciples to this notion, as a substitute for a life.

 

Like many audio fads there once was a grain of truth to this notion, but technological improvements have long since eliminated it.

The reality is that when CDs first came out, everything was ?DDD? ? Digital recording, Digital Post Production, Digital playback. Since there were very few recording studios equipped to record and post-produce digitally and not many CD players around, most early releases tended to be recordings of things like Symphony orchestras or Jazz ensembles that could be recorded and released to CD more or less ?as is?.

 

Then shock, horror, CD manufacturers started issuing ?AAD? discs, which were simply recorded and engineered on conventional multi-track analog equipment and only converted to digital at the very end of the chain. I?m not sure what the figures are now, but for many years that was the standard method of doing it, for virtually all types of music, and far more CDs have been sold (and continue to be sold) that were recorded that way.

 

The trouble started when record companies began re-issuing their old vinyl back catalogue on CD. In a lot of cases, instead of re-mixing the original multi-track tapes for CD release, they simply used the same stereo mixdown track that was meant to operate the LP master cutting lathe. These tracks are normally pre-equalized so that by the time the music comes out ?the other end? (that is, on the consumer?s record player) the equalization cancels out the distortions introduced by the recording process. However if you play a mastering tape directly through a stereo system it can sound downright awful, and that was basically what they were doing when it was dubbed to CD.

In many cases, particularly with early 4-track masters, the stereo master was the only one left in existence.

 

This the real reason early vinyl releases have to be ?Digitally Remastered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Like many audio fads there once was a grain of truth to this notion, but technological improvements have long since eliminated it.

 

Interesting Carl. I have long heard in the music world that there is no quality difference between solid-state amplifiers and tube amps. Yet, my ear, and a great many others ears, seem to still hear that the tube amps sound warmer. I wonder how so many people end up having the same delusions at the same time?

 

You bring up some good points Carl, but if you can't hear the difference between Vinyl and CD, you have auditory issues. I don't care about specs on paper, all that matters is what you perceive ultimately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
While you're there maybe you could check out that "Red Ranch" and shed a few tears as the future of movie making makes itself evident.

Dude...The "future of filmmaking" made itself evident a decade ago with the arrival of mini-DV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting Carl. I have long heard in the music world that there is no quality difference between solid-state amplifiers and tube amps. Yet, my ear, and a great many others ears, seem to still hear that the tube amps sound warmer. I wonder how so many people end up having the same delusions at the same time?

Where exactly have you heard that? And how exactly did tube amplifiers get into the discussion?

AND, what exactly does "warmer" mean?

In general, valve amplifiers tend to have higher distortion at moderate levels, but they go into clipping more gracefully than a transistor amp which subjectively sounds better to most people. However this is really only applicable to music from uncontrolled sources like phono pickups or guitar amplifiers. CD sources have much greater control over the output levels and so unexpected clipping rarely occurs. It's a great way to sell ludicrously overpriced audio equipment though. To the dedicated audiophile the system that sounds different is always the one that sounds "better". Even if its a piece of old rubbish.

 

You bring up some good points Carl, but if you can't hear the difference between Vinyl and CD, you have auditory issues. I don't care about specs on paper, all that matters is what you perceive ultimately.

Of course I can hear the difference between CD and vinyl! The average record cutting lathe introduces 1-2 % harmonic distortion and analog tape recording process adds at least another 1%. I don't believe any human can demonstrate that they can detect distortion levels below .05%, but 3% I can hear quite easily.

 

" I wonder how so many people end up having the same delusions at the same time?"

I take issue with the word "same". If they all came up with the same delusion it would be worthy of more scientific research. But it's like religion, if isolated groups of primitive people all in dependently came up with the same or similar supernatural beliefs, sceptics would be less sceptical. The fact that every little group seems to come up with its own version of the God myth strongly suggests it's just wishful thinking that originates from inside the human brain, not anywhere else.

Like some people of a religious bent, Audiophiles are incredible in the absolute BS that they will swallow. It seems that as long as you are doing something different, it's sure to sound better. In any case, valve amplification enthusiasts only make up a microscopic proportion of the general music listening population.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Premium Member

Tom asked me to bump this thread!

 

Sounds easier to prove, but remember, only films that have been produced by the studios themselves, not their subsidies or acquired later count. Your initial challenge was 'major-studio films', so I want to be absolutely clear on that. The average budget of those is probably around 70M or 80M I think, so 10M is a useless figure, I bet there won't be a major studio release that is under that. I think we should put the limit on 50M, after all the purpose of your bet is to prove that acceptance of digital by major studios, not by low budget films

 

Films that feature a mix of digital and film (think Collateral) won't be counted, unless one of the formats was used in a very limited capacity (highspeed or background elements, etc...)

 

There are six major studios by the way: Fox, Paramount, Sony, Universal, Warner & Disney.

 

Oh and we'll simply COUNT the films of each format and the one with the highest number determines the winner, there's no need for you to try to get your head around percentages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the bet currently stands as:

 

"For the three-month period spanning Nov 1, 2010 through Feb 1st, 2011, 51% or more of American (narrative feature) films with budgets over $30,000,000 USD will have been shot on digital rather than film. Film will account for less than 49% of American features with budgets over $30 million USD."

 

I changed 10 million to 30 million USD per the thread.

 

You're not getting nervous are you, Stephen? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Curious at where it currently stands, I did a search for films released in January of this year (films released prior to January and still running not considered) and then looked up the technical specs for each film listed (so I didn't have to look through 124 films I only looked at ones with a poster on their imdb page). In most cases I had to take the word of IMDB, as a bunch of the films I haven't heard about.

 

Anyway, the only film released in the US in January 2010 which actually qualifies as a studio-backed film with a budget over $30 million USD that was shot digitally was The Book Of Eli. Outside of that, everything was film. And if I was to hazard a guess for the current ratio of the criteria specified it stands at about 20:1 film to digital.

 

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?productio...le_type=feature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Tom, you later in the thread wrote:-

 

I would be fine with looking at the first six months of releases in 2011 and going off that - since a lot of those releases would have been shot in 2010. But that means I will not collect my 100 smackaroos until mid- or late 2011. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Anyway, the only film released in the US in January 2010 which actually qualifies as a studio-backed film with a budget over $30 million USD that was shot digitally was The Book Of Eli. Outside of that, everything was film. And if I was to hazard a guess for the current ratio of the criteria specified it stands at about 20:1 film to digital.

 

http://www.imdb.com/search/title?productio...le_type=feature

 

Hi Will,

 

Basically nothing has changed in 19 months, I think Tom was banking on non existant technology when he made the bet.

 

Stephen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
Hi Will,

 

Basically nothing has changed in 19 months, I think Tom was banking on non existant technology when he made the bet.

 

Stephen

So, er... to get back on topic how's RED Ranch actually going?

 

On another topic, what's the bet RED winds up buying Panavision?

(We respectfully request that Mr Jannard refrain from participating in this particular wager :lol: )

 

I'd like to offer my services as a consultant with regard to necessary staff cuts.

Fees to be negotiated, depending on what I can afford.... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, er... to get back on topic how's RED Ranch actually going?

 

On another topic, what's the bet RED winds up buying Panavision?

(We respectfully request that Mr Jannard refrain from participating in this particular wager :lol: )

 

I'd like to offer my services as a consultant with regard to necessary staff cuts.

Fees to be negotiated, depending on what I can afford.... :P

 

I don't need to participate in any wager... it seems to me that any bet is really not "if" but "when". It appears that everyone agrees that digital will replace film. It won't replace film altogether but rather the majority. Exactly when that happens is just an over/under bet of a date.

 

The really important issue is whether digital will replace film properly. Can digital rise to film quality and above? I personally think there is no question about that. Digital already surpasses film in many ways, especially with these two new sensors (Arri Alexa and M-X). But I also agree that there is still a ways to go for digital to beat film in every aspect. Monstro is our next version that pays homage to film. And we have begun development of the one after Monstro.

 

It seems to me that digital will respectfully replace film when 4 things happen.

 

1. Resolution passes film. That has happened.

 

2. Color matches film. That has happened. You may not agree but I would say you are not informed (yet).

 

3. Dynamic Range exceeds film. While getting closer, that has not happened but will happen by next year.

 

4. There is no need to in-camera sharpen digital, which negates the "soft feel" of film. That has happened with the highest resolution digital capture cameras.

 

There are a few areas that digital has already significantly surpassed film. The ability to shoot in low light and the "cleanness of the image". Also, instant results and grading.

 

We believe that 4K delivery will be the next industry standard. Sony, Christie, Barco, Meridian and Epson projectors... and Panasonic, Sony, Sharp and Samsumg displays are proof. Film can be delivered in 4K. So can RED. I would encourage all the other digital camera systems to quickly step up. 1080P and 2K are not enough.

 

We have shown comparative images of 1080P, 2K and 4K from a 4K projector on a 40' screen to many in the industry. The common response is... 2K is NOT good enough.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, er... to get back on topic how's RED Ranch actually going?

 

On another topic, what's the bet RED winds up buying Panavision?

(We respectfully request that Mr Jannard refrain from participating in this particular wager :lol: )

 

I'd like to offer my services as a consultant with regard to necessary staff cuts.

Fees to be negotiated, depending on what I can afford.... :P

 

And we are not buying Panavision.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

Hello Jim,

 

I know I'm going to draw a bunch of heat on my head for this post. But, I think it's worth making.

 

Before I get rolling, I'd like to first say that you've been an, honest to God, good sport about me making fun with you. I admire that above all other things that I find admirable about you.

 

Here's where I have to square off with you. Answer #1. From a viewer's ability to differentiate film from digital you're right as rain. No argument possible. But, you're statement was that digital passes the resolution of film. That's just not correct. Film is a pan-resolution capture medium. The pixel size that digital currently and near-future has to offer is only as small as the biggest chunks measurably found on a film negative. Optical path prints are no defense because the things that make RED more and more viable are the things that support film origination as well (4K digital projection).

 

Beefs about scans (beyond those of cost) are no defense. Scan technology has always lead digital acquisition in resolution with no presumption that it won't continue up to a limit since the sensing technologies for it are improving at a pace a few steps ahead of DA. As well, scan technology can rock with no compression. Scan costs are coming down, resolution is going up and storage is getting really cheap. DA bottlenecks from current processing limits, even with storage costs being about the same game for both.

 

This thing that "the sky's the limit" on sensors is starting to show wear and tear. I'm getting hints from here alone that there are physical limits to CCD and CMOS sensors. Though, I don't know where those limits are. Even the sloth-like film manufacturers are showing that their stock improvements have room for growth. Just like sensors, I don't know where those limits are.

 

On the speculative side: Jim. Oh, Jim. If Kodak can get off it's a** and pull a cine HDRI out of it's hat? Especially one that uses the existing 6 layers (swiped that one from Dominic) of emulsion on one strip? Where you gonna' go? Splitters and 3 sensors needed to catch up with film's exiting high DR + HDR? Overscanning with processing bottlenecks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Jim,

 

I know I'm going to draw a bunch of heat on my head for this post. But, I think it's worth making.

 

Before I get rolling, I'd like to first say that you've been an, honest to God, good sport about me making fun with you. I'd admire that above all other things that I find admirable about you.

 

Here's where I have to square off with you. Answer #1. From a viewer's ability to differentiate film from digital you're right as rain. No argument possible. But, you're statement was that digital passes the resolution of film. That's just not correct. Film is a pan-resolution capture medium. The pixel size that digital currently and near-future has to offer is only as small as the biggest chunks measurably found on a film negative. Optical path prints are no defense because the things that make RED more and more viable are the things that support film origination as well (4K digital projection).

 

Beefs about scans (beyond those of cost) are no defense. Scan technology has always lead digital acquisition in resolution with no presumption that it won't continue up to a limit since the sensing technologies for it are improving at a pace a few steps ahead of DA. As well, scan technology can rock with no compression. Scan costs are coming down, resolution is going up and storage is getting really cheap. DA bottlenecks from current processing limits, even with storage costs being about the same game for both.

 

This thing that "the sky's the limit" on sensors is starting to show wear and tear. I'm getting hints from here alone that there are physical limits to CCD and CMOS sensors. Though, I don't know where that limit is. Even the sloth-like film manufacturers are showing that there stock improvements have room for growth. Just like sensors, I don't know where those limits are.

 

On the speculative side: Jim. Oh, Jim. If Kodak can get off it's a** and pull a cine HDRI out of it's hat? Especially one that uses the existing 6 layers (swiped that one from Dominic) of emulsion on one strip? Where you gonna' go? Splitters and 3 sensors needed to catch up with film's exiting high DR + HDR? Overscanning with processing bottlenecks?

 

Paul... I have no problems with squaring off in a respectful way. One of the biggest studios (which I have promised not to name) has conducted many tests on film resolution from a 4K scan. Their results show 3.2K from slow film and 2.8K from ASA 500 film. Compared to RED "old resolution"... the slow film matches at 3.2K. Compared to new debayer 4K RED... the RED has more resolution (3.5K). Now given that the new sensor can record 4.5K (measured almost 4K) and EPIC at 5K (measured well in excess of 4K)... it is academic. Proof is viewing. The same studio, along with another "big one" have both acknowledged that RED out-resolves a 4K film scan. If you would like to come see the results yourself... you are welcome to stop by.

 

EPIC has a legitimate HDR mode... which will be showcased at NAB (actually the Tropicana) in April.

 

Film cannot keep pace with digital. That is a fact. And those that think CMOS has an end to its capability are correct... but we are nowhere close to it.

 

A 400' load of film will not get any smaller, lighter, cheaper or easier to process. What was the equivalent to that (an 8GB CF card) is now 8X more powerful. The 64GB cards are now available. And 128 GB on the way. All are reusable. Hard to compete with.

 

Film does not submit to Moore's law. And the world is moving at a high rate of speed.

 

I love film. I just want to see film replaced with a worthy candidate. We are almost there.

 

Jim

Edited by Jim Jannard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
2. Color matches film. That has happened. You may not agree but I would say you are not informed (yet).

 

Are the Bayer mask colors different on the new M-X sensor? What are the CIE 1931 (x,y) coordinates of the primaries?

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the Bayer mask colors different on the new M-X sensor? What are the CIE 1931 (x,y) coordinates of the primaries?

 

-- J.S.

 

Bayer mask colors are a bit different on M-X but that is not the key difference. The color science, native sensor color to debayer color (Camera RGB to REDcolor) has been improved dramatically. It would have been more precise to have said that "getting M-X to match or intercut with film color is easily done now". It wasn't so easy early on...

 

There is one way that people can make matching film color virtually impossible. And many people have done this. Export RAW R3Ds to an RGB space (DPX, TIFF or ProRes) without White Balance. Color science is based on a proper WB. Then try to "fix" the color in a grading app. It is next to impossible. Not only have you sent a twisted color matrix to an app that can't fix it... often times you have thrown out highlight info in the process.

 

Best RED color grading options to match film or get any other result you want:

 

1st Choice. White Balance and grade native R3Ds in a system that supports the R3D SDK like Scratch, Pablo, Baselight, REDCINE-X, FCP, Color, Adobe CS4, Vegas, etc.

 

2nd Choice. After selecting the correct White Balance, output full range (REDlog or REDgamma) and full res debayer to DPX, TIFF or ProRes 444 from REDCINE-X/RED Rocket™. Open output in 3rd party grading applications.

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member
I don't need to participate in any wager... it seems to me that any bet is really not "if" but "when". It appears that everyone agrees that digital will replace film. It won't replace film altogether but rather the majority. Exactly when that happens is just an over/under bet of a date.

 

The really important issue is whether digital will replace film properly. Can digital rise to film quality and above? I personally think there is no question about that. Digital already surpasses film in many ways, especially with these two new sensors (Arri Alexa and M-X). But I also agree that there is still a ways to go for digital to beat film in every aspect. Monstro is our next version that pays homage to film. And we have begun development of the one after Monstro.

 

It seems to me that digital will respectfully replace film when 4 things happen.

 

1. Resolution passes film. That has happened.

 

2. Color matches film. That has happened. You may not agree but I would say you are not informed (yet).

 

3. Dynamic Range exceeds film. While getting closer, that has not happened but will happen by next year.

 

4. There is no need to in-camera sharpen digital, which negates the "soft feel" of film. That has happened with the highest resolution digital capture cameras.

 

There are a few areas that digital has already significantly surpassed film. The ability to shoot in low light and the "cleanness of the image". Also, instant results and grading.

 

We believe that 4K delivery will be the next industry standard. Sony, Christie, Barco, Meridian and Epson projectors... and Panasonic, Sony, Sharp and Samsumg displays are proof. Film can be delivered in 4K. So can RED. I would encourage all the other digital camera systems to quickly step up. 1080P and 2K are not enough.

 

We have shown comparative images of 1080P, 2K and 4K from a 4K projector on a 40' screen to many in the industry. The common response is... 2K is NOT good enough.

 

Jim

????

Are you sure you're replying to my post?

I've never disagreed with most of that.

They only thing I've ever disputed is the timing; that is, people over many years saying XXX had already happened, when it quite clearly (and painfully) had NOT.

I don't know when, if ever, electronic sensors will be able to exactly emulate the performance of film, it's more the point where enough people will think they're "good enough"

 

 

 

What the world needs badly is 4K projectors that are affordable, reliable and can be operated by your average minimum-wage popcorn seller/soda jerk/washroom cleaner/projectionist :lol:

Edited by Keith Walters
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

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...